4 ms·

> The more appropriate question is why they published a AI artist at all. Because they allow anyone to upload to Spotify. There's nothing stopping me, you, or

• reconnecting 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  • mjr00 6mo ago
    > Lie. You will not. You need to go through the distributor (1), and it has always been this way. Er yes, which is why I mentioned LANDR and Amuse, both of which are on the page you linked. I mentioned those two specifically because I know they don't charge up-front and instead take a % of royalties, so they're ideal for flooding Spotify with AI slop. I'm not sure which part you think is a lie. > You need to go through a distributor (1) that does due diligence first, and it has always been this way. I see you edited your comment. Distributors do not do any sort of "due diligence". For the free distributors, you don't even need to give them personal information until you try to actually cash out your earnings. For DistroKid, when I first signed up I put in my credit card info, submitted my first song and it was up on Spotify 3 days later.
    • reconnecting 6mo ago
      Apologies, I had correct my comment prior to your reply. > Because they allow anyone to upload to Spotify. No one is allowed to upload directly to Spotify. However, I wasn't aware that distributors might not vet content prior to publishing.
      • input_sh 6mo ago
        > However, I wasn't aware that distributors might not vet content prior to publishing. Oh it's far worse than that. Some of them like the abovementioned LANDR also offer "AI-assisted music production", so there's that! Very few do proper vetting. They'll remove your music in a heartbeat if someone reports you to them (even in cases where such a report is completely bogus), but they won't do much to vet you beforehand. If they did that, they'd be labels, not distributors. Their only job is to be the hoop you have to get through that you don't have on say SoundCloud or YouTube.
        • reconnecting 6mo ago
          > Very few do proper vetting. Sounds promising. You nearly convinced me to reinstall FruityLoops and finally set out on the artist's path.
  • deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
• uncircle 6mo ago
  > Consumers are by and large not listening to AI generated music Consumers are sadly too ignorant to tell. YouTube is brimming with AI music slop and people praising it in the comments because they are unable to tell the difference (and it is actually pretty easy once you know what to look out for)
  • Lammy 6mo ago
    How can you trust that the commenters aren't AI too?
  • agmater 6mo ago
    Could you elaborate? I can't tell with music and voice
    • julianlam 6mo ago
      Lo-fi channels used to show the artist and song names. These newer ones don't bother with credits, or have made up song titles. E.g. "funky chicken jam"
    • uncircle 6mo ago
      You won't tell from the music. It's obviously an AI generated mix when: - the channel posts multiple mixes per week - the thumbnail is clearly AI generated - most importantly, the tracklist never includes any author, because there are none If you search for "<genre> mix" on YouTube right now, 9/10 results fail these criteria.
  • neonstatic 6mo ago
    Realistically speaking, why is that a problem? What is the point of music if not enjoyment? If these people enjoy it, what's wrong with it?
    • lifeformed 6mo ago
      It takes away from real human artists who do their part to slowly advance human culture. Music will not develop without human artists. Maybe for this moment in time AI can fulfill some people's musical desires, but it's not going to keep up with the times. The point of art, in a general sense, is humanity. Automating away your artistic needs is like automating away your social needs. It's a one way "relationship" that is superficial and self-indulgent. It's a step towards an empty world.
• overfeed 6mo ago
  > This assumes that real people are listening to AI-generated music which does not seem to be the case. Spotify will still profit from fraudulent streams at the expense of advertisers.
  • trelbutate 6mo ago
    Who will then stop advertising on there real quickly once they find out what's going on
    • overfeed 6mo ago
      That's a long-term challenge for the next CEO to figure out. Unlike CTC or CTC, radio and streaming ad campaigns are notoriously hard to track and attribute, and hence trend to brand-awareness. Advertisers won't see the effect of rising fraudulent streams immediately.
    • shimman 6mo ago
      Don't stop Facebook from completely making up video numbers. Seems like it's a good way to rug pull a bunch of workers and force them to accept lower rates.
• Renevith 6mo ago
  [dead]
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• twoodfin 6mo ago
  hn consumers by and large weren’t upvoting AI-written technology articles 12 months ago. The models got better, and now multiple such articles appear on the front page daily—with glowing comments. Humanity’s aesthetics are not (apparently) all that sophisticated on average.
  • andersonpico 6mo ago
    HN is the most concentrated accelerationist audience in the whole world and its very particular type of crowd. I don't think this translates at all to general public (well, maybe I would agree with you that the aesthetic sense of people on here is really less sophisticated than average).
    • twoodfin 6mo ago
      My point is that most of these “vibe articles” are pretty bad. They’re muddled in their ideas and full of gaps in logic or fact. But the aesthetics are tuned enough to get upvotes from this same audience that thinks AI music is going nowhere.
      • nullsanity 6mo ago
        [dead]
  • arcticfox 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    • twoodfin 6mo ago
      Exactly backwards: These articles suck because the writing sucks. There was this morning a well-written, engaging article about building a Gameboy emulator in F# that the author admitted using some LLM help to compose. Easy upvote. It’s not impossible to get these tools to make your writing better, and presumably that will become easier over time. But if you don’t put in the effort & your own clear ideas, the result today is garbage. But pleasing garbage to a wide swath of the hn audience. Pop tech writing!
• techno303 6mo ago
  6 tracks have made the Billboard charts. That's a pretty definitive signal that people are listening to AI music. Where to draw the line on what is/isn't AI is a rabbit hole in and of itself. You'd have a hard time convincing me that people aren't using AI to build the most powerful DSP plugins. I've been very pleasantly surprised by how easy it is to make very music-useful tools with Faust and Codex. https://www.billboard.com/lists/ai-artists-on-billboard-charts/ https://www.billboard.com/lists/ai-artists-on-billboard-char...
  • srveale 6mo ago
    How many tracks didn't make it to the Billboard charts?
    • vanjajaja1 6mo ago
      we're measuring if people are listening to AI music, not what percentage of AI music is slop
  • xingped 6mo ago
    One of the problems is that it's hard to tell at first that it's AI music. Probably still hard to figure it out by ear after you've been told. But I think not nearly as many people would choose to listen to AI songs if they knew they were AI. There's a reason it can succeed as it is now. Making music that is catchy to our ears is fairly formulaic. It's easy fot AI to do the same. But if they start labeling which music is AI and which isn't, it probably won't succeed as well. I was pretty pissed and considered canceling my Spotify Premium after the first time I'd realized I'd been duped by AI songs. I just report them any time I see them now. If they gave me a settings option to block all AI music I'd be fine.
    • roenxi 6mo ago
      I'm put in mind of the Merchandise Marks Act 1887 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Germany#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Germany#History - which ultimately did the opposite of what it was expected to do. There is a real chance here that people just want to listen to something that sounds nice and aren't that fussed about whether a human is involved. Besides, people seem to go in pretty strongly with computers to tune the sound already. It wouldn't be that shocking if people were already listening to works that can only be made with the aid of a computer.
• parineum 6mo ago
  > It's largely a vanity ouroboros where someone with more money than sense generates a song, pays bots to get fraudulent streams, and uses those streams to generate vanity metrics. It's actually money laundering. I generate ai music and then pay hackers illicit money to listen thousands of times and then I get clean money from Spotify.
• mathgladiator 6mo ago
  I basically only listen to AI music now... https://www.youtube.com/@EndlessTaverns https://www.youtube.com/@EndlessTaverns
  • hacker161 6mo ago
    You couldn’t waterboard this sort of confession out of me. Imagine proclaiming publicly that you have zero-taste and only consume AI slop
    • layman51 6mo ago
      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 kind of character that is made up by a record label or another artist.
      • pixel_popping 5mo ago
        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.
      • hacker161 5mo ago
        > 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.
• stuaxo 6mo ago
  Spotify themselves generate AI music, they prefer that to paying artists.
• Kye 6mo ago
  LANDR and Amuse dropped their free options.