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

Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–329 of 329 posts

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#321

Post by pixel_popping »

layman51 wrote: post #309
hacker161 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn’t waterboard this sort of confession out of me. Imagine proclaiming publicly that you have zero-taste and only consume AI slop

I think it can sort of make sense for some people who sort of listen to music as a background noise. But for me, when I am listening to a new song, I get curious about who the artist(s) is/are. Do they sound better in a live performance? What other music or artists inspired them? What other artists sound like them? I don’t think it would be easy for a “AI” artist to not be suspicious to me unless they were like some…

I'm the opposite (I know, it's probably bad) but I often do everything I can to not know who's behind because I often try to dream and make my own mind about a specific song/artist, and of course my wife then suddenly show me who the person is and then the whole perception of the artist changes and sometimes ruin it for me.

I listen to music from night to morning (practically non-stop actually) and probably 100+ different artists within a day, I'm not genuinely interested in them, I'm just interested in their work.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#322

Post by pixel_popping »

maplethorpe wrote: post #281
pesus wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way so many people on HN and elsewhere don't value art at all is pretty depressing. I don't know if it's a side effect of lack of exposure to art and the humanities growing up or something else, but I can't imagine living that way. What a dull experience life would be without art.

HN is an interesting case, because a lot of those types of comments are likely to be either astroturfing, people who work at those companies, or people who are invested in them. I wouldn't extrapolate too much to the rest of humanity based on the people here.

You might overthink this as well, reality is most people just want to type `XXXX mix` and they just want to have this playing for 1h with nice backgrounds and call it a day, I doubt most actually care if it's AI or not. They might care only if you tell them. I hope I'm wrong.

There is also the genuine interest in a group to play AI tracks out of curiosity which is entertaining on its own as well, especially for the ones unaware of what it can produce (particularly since 2026).

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#323

Post by hacker161 »

layman51 wrote: post #309
hacker161 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn’t waterboard this sort of confession out of me. Imagine proclaiming publicly that you have zero-taste and only consume AI slop

I think it can sort of make sense for some people who sort of listen to music as a background noise. But for me, when I am listening to a new song, I get curious about who the artist(s) is/are. Do they sound better in a live performance? What other music or artists inspired them? What other artists sound like them? I don’t think it would be easy for a “AI” artist to not be suspicious to me unless they were like some…

> I think it can sort of make sense for some people who sort of listen to music as a background noise

This is a whole genre of music in of itself that real people created which AIs were trained on stolen copies of to produce slop that doesn’t have to compensate the origins.

So it only makes sense in that case if you think slop derived from real art is awesome and that actual human beings can get fucked.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#324

Post by neonstatic »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #318
neonstatic wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As I said in another comment - intellectualization. I think you are proving my point

I'm not the one complaining. I have no emotion in this. What conflict do you think I have internally? You're criticizing an overly simplified version of the actual argument, and I'm trying to help you understand the actual argument. You could criticize their actual argument. I think there could be a healthy debate there. Their argument, about being disappointed there is no actual author you could have a meeting of th…

> Even if you still dislike that argument, it's something you can't dismiss as a mere prejudice that got intellectualized.

Why can't I?

I think that it's a great example of trying to explain a preference with an idea. Preferences don't need to be explained. Quite often they can't be. I think it strange, that a person would like something, then dislike it because some meta-information about the thing is not preferred. I know people do it all the time. "I like service X, but I don't like the guy who built it" is a great example of that. What we are discussing here is an even better example, because music appeals to the sense of aesthetics more directly and has little to no utility beyond that. If you find a piece that does appeal to your sense of aesthetics, why would you convince yourself to not like it? Sounds like a job for the mind. Discussing which trick of the mind does the job better, seems to be missing the point. That's why I dismiss it.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#325

Post by Dylan16807 »

neonstatic wrote: post #324
Dylan16807 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the one complaining. I have no emotion in this. What conflict do you think I have internally? You're criticizing an overly simplified version of the actual argument, and I'm trying to help you understand the actual argument. You could criticize their actual argument. I think there could be a healthy debate there. Their argument, about being disappointed there is no actual author you could have a meeting of th…

> Even if you still dislike that argument, it's something you can't dismiss as a mere prejudice that got intellectualized. Why can't I? I think that it's a great example of trying to explain a preference with an idea. Preferences don't need to be explained. Quite often they can't be. I think it strange, that a person would like something, then dislike it because some meta-information about the thing is not preferred.…

> Why can't I?

"I want to have a meeting of the minds" is a valid preference all by itself that involves no prejudice.

> Preferences don't need to be explained.

I don't understand how you start a paragraph with this, and then spend the rest of it taking about how you dismiss people's author-based preferences.

You're allowed to have preferences based on the work itself and the author. Death of the author is not a fundamental truth of the universe. And having those preferences, caring about the author, is not convincing yourself of anything, is not any kind of self-deception.

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#326

Post by mathgladiator »

hacker161 wrote: post #273
mathgladiator wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically only listen to AI music now... https://www.youtube.com/@EndlessTaverns

You couldn’t waterboard this sort of confession out of me. Imagine proclaiming publicly that you have zero-taste and only consume AI slop

I've also waterboarded myself... it was... awful

Re: Spotify adds 'Verified' badges to distinguish human artists from AI

#328

Post by threepts »

andai wrote: post #314
threepts wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and it is still impressive even with regard to that. In the near future we will probably have a mini 50B parameter model prompting the bigger model and we would have these results consistently.

Could you elaborate? I hear some people say a big model should be driving a smaller model, I hear some people say a small model should be driving a bigger models. When I have an expensive task that is clearly defined, I will get opus to write an LLM workflow for it, and then I will execute it with a smaller model. (Starting with the smallest one, and then upgrading if the task fails.) But this is a single well define…

All of the major model's memory are handled by smaller more specific models.

I do not know about the future, but I believe, like the human brain (the amylgada + cerebral cortex), AGI will have smaller but more specific submodels running in parallel to craft an compelling heuristic.

Post reply on HN