4 ms·

> 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

by fxwin 3mo ago

> 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. Just like we don't penalize artists for consuming content unless they produce actually infringing content, we should set the same focus for AI systems. > Starting today, AI-generated music will not be monetizable. We are only in the beginning of the era of AI-generated music. Don't really agree that this follows from the stated principle here ("... ensuring royalties go to original works produced, written and performed by people"), but will definitely help with spam etc.

VladVladikoff 3mo ago
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.
- sarjann 3mo ago
  I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.
  - stronglikedan 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - selectodude 3mo ago
      You get both the white nationalist and the antisemite sides, yes.
      - vlian2088 3mo ago
        as opposed to ye olde twitter where only wholesome racism was allowed https://web.archive.org/web/20181130015402/https://pasteboard.co/HzdB4wI.png https://web.archive.org/web/20181130015402/https://pasteboar... https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011518/https://pasteboard.co/HzdBkuf.png https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011518/https://pasteboar... https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011519/https://pasteboard.co/HzdBAUN.png https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011519/https://pasteboar...
        andai 3mo ago
        Well they defined racism as "you can only be racist if you have power" and they defined having power as being white, so this is totally kosher.
        selectodude 3mo ago
        I have this magical ability to think lots of people can suck simultaneously. I’m also able to separate the power and ability to inflict damage of a bunch of shitheads on twitter from the White House and the first ever trillionaire.
        vlian2088 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        selectodude 3mo ago
        No. I don’t think it’s at all okay or fair that the wealthiest man in the world can push great replacement conspiracies and endorse the murder of immigrants (non-white South African division).
        vlian2088 3mo ago
        why should he alone be excluded from being able to use the media outlet he owns to promote his agenda? everyone else is doing it.
    - jdiff 3mo ago
      Paid to engage is a reference to the creator revenue sharing that encourages mass-appeal and ragebait content. X is not a meritocracy of ideas, either.
    - 13hunteo 3mo ago
      X pays you for engagement if you have the premium subscription. Anyone with a verification symbol will be earning money from significant engagement, hence the rise of engagement bait on the platform.
    - palmotea 3mo ago
      > It's actually gotten better for those of us that value all sides of a given story so we can come to our own conclusions, instead of parroting stuff we hear in bubbles. 1. A different bubble is still a bubble. 2. Regardless of political leanings, paying for engagement is a really bad sign. > I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself. So? You don't have to know anyone being paid for it to be happening. The people who are really motivated by that are often poor by western standards and living on the other side of the world from you. Facebook also pays for engagement, and what that's lead to is stuff like AI-generated shrimp Jesus and fake "I made this" memes, created by guys in India that don't even know English and don't own a computer. They throw crap at the wall from their cell phones to see what sticks, then do more of that. IIRC the same thing happens for politics. Just the other day I read that a lot of popular "Alberta separatist" accounts are run by people who don't even live in Canada. They just use AI and shamelessly copy posts made by other accounts.
    - mcintyre1994 3mo ago
      Assuming you already pay for 'verification' on X, you just need to get more followers/impressions and then you'll start being paid based on your impressions. If you know/follow anyone with the 'verified' checkmark who has a lot of followers, they'll be getting paid for impressions.
    - Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
      How do you know / ensure you're getting all sides of the story? For one, many people have left the platform already because of its owner and policies, so you're not hearing those sides anymore. > I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself. Anecdotal; people get paid / pay to post and promote certain content. But that's nothing new on social media. That said, escaping or avoiding bubbles is good, just be sure you're actually out.
      - plagiarist 3mo ago
        As soon as they find the side of the story they already agree with they know that the platform is a marketplace of ideas instead of a bubble.
      - fg137 3mo ago
        They don't. What they actually mean by "all sides" is "my side" (that is not typically allowed/supported on other platforms, for reasons they don't want to go into)
    - virgildotcodes 3mo ago
      Do you think it will be a net social benefit for people to be taught 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5 with equal weight, and let them come to their own conclusions? How about if the person who owns the educational institution puts their thumb on the 2 + 2 = 5 side of the balance for their own ends?
  - Sharlin 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - jdiff 3mo ago
      Mechahitler sure isn't helping.
      - TightFibre 3mo ago
        @slop put Twitter in SS bikini.
      - dcrazy 3mo ago
        I haven’t been on Twitter since before Elon took over. Do most users ever interact with Grok?
        jdiff 3mo ago
        It waxes and it wanes, but people breathlessly asking Grok "IS THIS TRUE??" is prevalent. People often call on Grok to argue their points for them. The interaction is inflicted.
        freakynit 3mo ago
        Meme context: https://x.com/BrunoCendon/status/1926883516890898637 https://x.com/BrunoCendon/status/1926883516890898637
        Forgeties79 3mo ago
        Then they get upset when grok doesn’t agree with Trump/musk and call a computer “woke”
    - nkozyra 3mo ago
      Provide financial incentives to make it worse.
    - virgildotcodes 3mo ago
      I'm not sure if you actually haven't checked it since, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. Accounts pushing white supremacy, the reversion of women's rights, hatred towards other on the basis of their race or religion, climate change denial, denial of science and promotion of pseudoscience, etc etc. are heavily promoted across the platform and get millions of engagements. If you create a new account, the majority of the accounts you are shown and suggested to follow will be those pushing the above. They've switched to a model of paying their users for engagement, which naturally encourages users to post the most engagement bait they can, which tends to be inflammatory and utterly lacking in depth or nuance.
- obloid 3mo ago
  I've encountered AI copies of songs from popular artists, hopefully this will stop or at least slow that down. I suspect the only reason those songs are uploaded is because people will accidentally listen to it and then the up loader gets the streaming revenue.
  - Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
    But that's not a new issue per se, low effort "covers" / "remixes" of songs has been an issue for a long time. Bonus point if said low-effort remix includes the original artist in the artist fields, so it shows up in the recommendations of fans of the original artist for a lot of accidental listens. But AI does seem to make it easier.
    - runarberg 3mo ago
      When low effort goes to no effort one can expect the problem to worsen by several orders of magnitude. Also not that it takes skill to come up with a remix/cover/homage of a song that is close enough to the original that people can enjoy it like the original, but not so close that you are just plagiarizing it. So this problem before AI is limited to talented musicians who for some reason would rather copy somebody else then to make their own music.
  - dawnerd 3mo ago
    It’s really bad on smaller artists that had moderate vitality on TikTok. Or at least it’s easier to spot since they have smaller catalogs. Encountered some on Apple Music the other day that outright had the artist listed and according to Apple it was from the artist. IMO they need to focus on the scam side more than the AI side.
- rvnx 3mo ago
  The real reason is not that people can make money off it, it's that actual people are listening to it. Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ? > 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-music/ https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...
  - wredcoll 3mo ago
    People do listen to it and enjoy it but to some degree it becomes a marketing problem. I don't know how to weight the moral issue of someone missing out on a song they would love and instead getting a one they merely like because the ai stuff is flooding the market, but it would be nice to tip the scales a bit in the other way.
  - a_bonobo 3mo ago
    Why would I pay 10 dollars per month for music I can AI-generate myself for free?
    - signatoremo 3mo ago
      That's right. Why would you? Other people seem to be fine with it. Why wouldn't they?
      - kombookcha 3mo ago
        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.
- bunderbunder 3mo ago
  And the flood really is overwhelming. This weekend my mom was complaining about having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle Unlimited. I mentioned that the relative lack of slop is one of the major reasons I chose Kobo over Kindle. Even before this latest AI boom I was already starting to view less content as a feature, not a bug, because it seems that on subscription services “more” is increasingly just a polite way of saying “more crap.” Similar feelings about Nebula vs YouTube, although Nebula straight up doesn’t have entire genres, or videos in languages other than English, so it doesn’t really work as a general recommendation.
  - giglamesh 3mo ago
    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 because of AI slop is new benefit of sticking to older texts that I hadn't anticipated.
    - TFNA 3mo ago
      A significant amount of ebook reading now is romance/erotica or fantasy (or combined "romantasy") genres by readers for whom something a decade old won't appeal. An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), or it isn't what one's peers are reading and one wants to connect with a community of other readers online or in school/university, etc. Obviously if one doesn't read these genres, this is a whole foreign world, but it is increasingly the state of mainstream fiction reading, and AI slop is a problem for them that you may be asked to help avoid if you are the nerdy loved one of such a reader.
      - wredcoll 3mo ago
        > An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), Or, you know, you've just read the old books already because they came out 10 years ago and that's a lot of time to read. I doubt it has anything to do with "romantasy" as a genre, anything that has people actually reading books, on a regular basis (as opposed to the people who mean reading as consuming one "notable" novel a year). In any case, epublishing has made a lot more books available and filtering through them was a difficult task even before AI increased the output dramatically. I've been saying for a while now there's a large untapped market for actually effective recommendation systems (almost certainly human driven given the demonstrated limitations of computer systems so far), as mentioned it was a problem to find "the good stuff" even among just self-published pre-ai books, now it's way beyond that. I guess to some degree it's the same basic problem as spam filtering, but considerably more nuanced and difficult.
- paxys 3mo ago
  So why not just disallow it entirely, if that’s the goal?
  - JAlexoid 3mo ago
    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.
    - red-iron-pine 3mo ago
      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.
      - JAlexoid 3mo ago
        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
- lubujackson 3mo ago
  Sure, but how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music? This is new frontier of spam. So begins the Clone Wars...
  - addaon 3mo ago
    > how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music? Is this their responsibility? Just restrict payment to the registered copyright holder or their delegate, require registration of copyright for music to be payment-eligible, and escalate the problem to a federal crime with (presumedly) federal enforcement, no? Sure, some people will commit federal crimes to get a payout, but it's gotta reduce the problem massively.
- bko 3mo ago
  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 or curate my playlist, but it's just work. I would love a stream of AI generated music in a particular style I can work to.
  - atrus 3mo ago
    You see that a lot in AI (and honestly, other discussions) where people with differing requirements are talking past each other. Some people are listening to music as an experience, internalizing lyrics, empathizing with the feeling and vibes of the artist. Others are just wanting something pop-y as background noise while they do work. They come together and since they're arguing for different needs, the whole thing turns into a mess.
    - platevoltage 3mo ago
      It's still silly. We have decades and decades of pop music, and really any kind of music you could possibly want. What AI SHOULD be used for is matching these people with some of the music made over the course of human history that they might like, not feeding them pig slop.
      - JAlexoid 3mo ago
        We have a lot of pop-slop, now it's AI slop. There's a reason why a few artists persist through the decades, while others just fade into obscurity.(think of how long Madonna, Cher have been around)
  - tedajax 3mo ago
    [flagged]
  - platevoltage 3mo ago
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
DobarDabar 3mo ago
[dead]
mattmatheus 3mo ago
Not sure about the stated principal, but I do think it follows the policy nicely. Yes, you can upload your AI generated music, but it will be tagged as such, and you cannot profit from it.
- fxwin 3mo ago
  The issue i have with it will depend heavily on implementation, i can see cases where songs that i would consider "produced and written" by people don't qualify for royalties under Tidal's guidelines. (I intentionally left out the "performed" part, since digital music production is way past the point where this was an easy and/or meaningful distinction)
Grombobulous 3mo ago
Isn’t it true that AI generated music holds no legal copyright?
- gonzalohm 3mo ago
  Why is that? And who draws the line? If I use a synthesizer to generate music, does that count as AI generated?
  - Grombobulous 3mo ago
    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.
    - p-e-w 3mo ago
      Nothing is “created 100% by AI” though, because AIs don’t create things without human instructions.
      - oasisbob 3mo ago
        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.
        make3 3mo ago
        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.
        oasisbob 3mo ago
        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.
injidup 3mo ago
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.
- p-e-w 3mo ago
  Indeed. When they say that AI music can’t be monetized, they of course mean “… except by us”.
- oasisbob 3mo ago
  > We will therefore not knowingly attribute royalties to music we identify as wholly AI-generated. Seems like Tidal is leaning on a probable lack of copyright for fully generated works here, otherwise wouldn't this run head-first into the music modernization act?
  - ikari_pl 3mo ago
    i feel like it's going to be hard to defend whether, for example, handwriting and rewriting the lyrics and style prompts is enough to make it classified as non AI generated in the end. it's not like they'd make the subscription free if you listen to loyalties-free music only.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- lelanthran 3mo ago
  > 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,
  - 3mo ago
calny 3mo ago
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 https://tidal.com/terms) say that: > “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive of musical works and sound recordings, that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence, with limited or no direct human creative input beyond an initial text prompt or similar instruction. ... You acknowledge that AI detection technology may produce false positives or false negatives. And: > If you use TIDAL Upload, your Tracks may be scanned for the purpose of identifying whether the content is AI-Generated Content, and to label such content accordingly on the Tidal platform. You acknowledge that such scanning and labeling is performed on a best-efforts basis and that Tidal shall not be liable for any inaccuracies in AI detection or labeling. AI-Generated Content uploaded to Tidal is not eligible for monetization. If you believe your Tracks were erroneously tagged as AI-Generated, you can reach out to support@tidal.com.
- summarybot 3mo ago
  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 ;)
  - FridgeSeal 3mo ago
    Nah name-and-shame them!
  - Foreignborn 3mo ago
    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?
    - ozzmotik 3mo ago
      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 collage. now granted: I don't use AI to write my lyrics (with the exception of pieces framed as involving AI, eg. rap battles against AI), and furthermore beyond that, I also use my own musical productions from the past as audio uploads alongside my lyrics and my prompting strategy, so by definition I'd say my output is inherently going to be exploring sonic space that is not typically explored by most users, and as such if I am using my own output as the mechanism by which I'm evaluating this argument, then naturally it's probably going to be understandable as to why I find it so difficult to distinguish between AI and organic human effort. but either way. I've had people express some level of intrigue at the level of variation and such present in my output artifacts, which to me suggests that this might be a relevant dimension within which to evaluate this specific character or quality of music as machine generated or human generated... just some (admittedly not super well structured) thoughts it occurred to me to share.
vkou 3mo ago
The difference between AI and artists is that artists are humans, which should grant them more rights and fewer penalties than some fucking software. Artists don't get penalized, but for that reason, we should penalize the hell out of it. If a bunch of hyper intelligent space aliens came in and started squeezing the rest of us out of creative economic activity, they shouldn't be on an equal playing field either. Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.
- fxwin 3mo ago
  > Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines. Machines don't go out on their own to create and upload music, they do so under human instruction, so their output should be policed the same way we police other machine generated output directed by humans.
  - dawnerd 3mo ago
    I guess you haven’t seen some of the agentic stuff?
    - fxwin 3mo ago
      I work with coding agents every day, I don't think they have ever started working on a project without me telling them to
      - kalleboo 3mo ago
        OpenClaw does this kind of stuff. People give it a "personality" and let it go wild doing whatever it wants - finding and contributing PRs to GitHub projects, and yes also making music. It was all the rage like 2-5 months ago.
        fxwin 3mo ago
        And i would consider this as an agent doing things under human instruction
h4ny 3mo ago
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's really not a clear-cut problem. But your stance can be clear-cut, and in this messy world where there is no perfect solution one way or the other, your stance matters even more. You could either be seen as a fence sitter who allowed slop to happen, or someone who stands with human creativity battling against shitty people and their slop. Please stop this kind of fence-sitting reasoning if you care about people.
- fxwin 3mo ago
  I'm not sure which part of my comment comes across as fence sitting to you, but to clarify: - 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 <Field X> 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
laybak 3mo ago
[dead]

by fxwin 3mo ago

VladVladikoff 3mo ago

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.

sarjann 3mo ago
I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.
- stronglikedan 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - selectodude 3mo ago
    You get both the white nationalist and the antisemite sides, yes.
    - vlian2088 3mo ago
      as opposed to ye olde twitter where only wholesome racism was allowed https://web.archive.org/web/20181130015402/https://pasteboard.co/HzdB4wI.png https://web.archive.org/web/20181130015402/https://pasteboar... https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011518/https://pasteboard.co/HzdBkuf.png https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011518/https://pasteboar... https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011519/https://pasteboard.co/HzdBAUN.png https://web.archive.org/web/20180827011519/https://pasteboar...
      - andai 3mo ago
        Well they defined racism as "you can only be racist if you have power" and they defined having power as being white, so this is totally kosher.
      - selectodude 3mo ago
        I have this magical ability to think lots of people can suck simultaneously. I’m also able to separate the power and ability to inflict damage of a bunch of shitheads on twitter from the White House and the first ever trillionaire.
        vlian2088 3mo ago
        [flagged]
        selectodude 3mo ago
        No. I don’t think it’s at all okay or fair that the wealthiest man in the world can push great replacement conspiracies and endorse the murder of immigrants (non-white South African division).
        vlian2088 3mo ago
        why should he alone be excluded from being able to use the media outlet he owns to promote his agenda? everyone else is doing it.
  - jdiff 3mo ago
    Paid to engage is a reference to the creator revenue sharing that encourages mass-appeal and ragebait content. X is not a meritocracy of ideas, either.
  - 13hunteo 3mo ago
    X pays you for engagement if you have the premium subscription. Anyone with a verification symbol will be earning money from significant engagement, hence the rise of engagement bait on the platform.
  - palmotea 3mo ago
    > It's actually gotten better for those of us that value all sides of a given story so we can come to our own conclusions, instead of parroting stuff we hear in bubbles. 1. A different bubble is still a bubble. 2. Regardless of political leanings, paying for engagement is a really bad sign. > I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself. So? You don't have to know anyone being paid for it to be happening. The people who are really motivated by that are often poor by western standards and living on the other side of the world from you. Facebook also pays for engagement, and what that's lead to is stuff like AI-generated shrimp Jesus and fake "I made this" memes, created by guys in India that don't even know English and don't own a computer. They throw crap at the wall from their cell phones to see what sticks, then do more of that. IIRC the same thing happens for politics. Just the other day I read that a lot of popular "Alberta separatist" accounts are run by people who don't even live in Canada. They just use AI and shamelessly copy posts made by other accounts.
  - mcintyre1994 3mo ago
    Assuming you already pay for 'verification' on X, you just need to get more followers/impressions and then you'll start being paid based on your impressions. If you know/follow anyone with the 'verified' checkmark who has a lot of followers, they'll be getting paid for impressions.
  - Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
    How do you know / ensure you're getting all sides of the story? For one, many people have left the platform already because of its owner and policies, so you're not hearing those sides anymore. > I don't know anyone that's paid to engage, including myself. Anecdotal; people get paid / pay to post and promote certain content. But that's nothing new on social media. That said, escaping or avoiding bubbles is good, just be sure you're actually out.
    - plagiarist 3mo ago
      As soon as they find the side of the story they already agree with they know that the platform is a marketplace of ideas instead of a bubble.
    - fg137 3mo ago
      They don't. What they actually mean by "all sides" is "my side" (that is not typically allowed/supported on other platforms, for reasons they don't want to go into)
  - virgildotcodes 3mo ago
    Do you think it will be a net social benefit for people to be taught 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5 with equal weight, and let them come to their own conclusions? How about if the person who owns the educational institution puts their thumb on the 2 + 2 = 5 side of the balance for their own ends?
- Sharlin 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jdiff 3mo ago
    Mechahitler sure isn't helping.
    - TightFibre 3mo ago
      @slop put Twitter in SS bikini.
    - dcrazy 3mo ago
      I haven’t been on Twitter since before Elon took over. Do most users ever interact with Grok?
      - jdiff 3mo ago
        It waxes and it wanes, but people breathlessly asking Grok "IS THIS TRUE??" is prevalent. People often call on Grok to argue their points for them. The interaction is inflicted.
        freakynit 3mo ago
        Meme context: https://x.com/BrunoCendon/status/1926883516890898637 https://x.com/BrunoCendon/status/1926883516890898637
        Forgeties79 3mo ago
        Then they get upset when grok doesn’t agree with Trump/musk and call a computer “woke”
  - nkozyra 3mo ago
    Provide financial incentives to make it worse.
  - virgildotcodes 3mo ago
    I'm not sure if you actually haven't checked it since, but will give you the benefit of the doubt. Accounts pushing white supremacy, the reversion of women's rights, hatred towards other on the basis of their race or religion, climate change denial, denial of science and promotion of pseudoscience, etc etc. are heavily promoted across the platform and get millions of engagements. If you create a new account, the majority of the accounts you are shown and suggested to follow will be those pushing the above. They've switched to a model of paying their users for engagement, which naturally encourages users to post the most engagement bait they can, which tends to be inflammatory and utterly lacking in depth or nuance.
obloid 3mo ago
I've encountered AI copies of songs from popular artists, hopefully this will stop or at least slow that down. I suspect the only reason those songs are uploaded is because people will accidentally listen to it and then the up loader gets the streaming revenue.
- Cthulhu_ 3mo ago
  But that's not a new issue per se, low effort "covers" / "remixes" of songs has been an issue for a long time. Bonus point if said low-effort remix includes the original artist in the artist fields, so it shows up in the recommendations of fans of the original artist for a lot of accidental listens. But AI does seem to make it easier.
  - runarberg 3mo ago
    When low effort goes to no effort one can expect the problem to worsen by several orders of magnitude. Also not that it takes skill to come up with a remix/cover/homage of a song that is close enough to the original that people can enjoy it like the original, but not so close that you are just plagiarizing it. So this problem before AI is limited to talented musicians who for some reason would rather copy somebody else then to make their own music.
- dawnerd 3mo ago
  It’s really bad on smaller artists that had moderate vitality on TikTok. Or at least it’s easier to spot since they have smaller catalogs. Encountered some on Apple Music the other day that outright had the artist listed and according to Apple it was from the artist. IMO they need to focus on the scam side more than the AI side.
rvnx 3mo ago
The real reason is not that people can make money off it, it's that actual people are listening to it. Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ? > 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-music/ https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...
- wredcoll 3mo ago
  People do listen to it and enjoy it but to some degree it becomes a marketing problem. I don't know how to weight the moral issue of someone missing out on a song they would love and instead getting a one they merely like because the ai stuff is flooding the market, but it would be nice to tip the scales a bit in the other way.
- a_bonobo 3mo ago
  Why would I pay 10 dollars per month for music I can AI-generate myself for free?
  - signatoremo 3mo ago
    That's right. Why would you? Other people seem to be fine with it. Why wouldn't they?
    - kombookcha 3mo ago
      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.
bunderbunder 3mo ago
And the flood really is overwhelming. This weekend my mom was complaining about having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle Unlimited. I mentioned that the relative lack of slop is one of the major reasons I chose Kobo over Kindle. Even before this latest AI boom I was already starting to view less content as a feature, not a bug, because it seems that on subscription services “more” is increasingly just a polite way of saying “more crap.” Similar feelings about Nebula vs YouTube, although Nebula straight up doesn’t have entire genres, or videos in languages other than English, so it doesn’t really work as a general recommendation.
- giglamesh 3mo ago
  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 because of AI slop is new benefit of sticking to older texts that I hadn't anticipated.
  - TFNA 3mo ago
    A significant amount of ebook reading now is romance/erotica or fantasy (or combined "romantasy") genres by readers for whom something a decade old won't appeal. An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), or it isn't what one's peers are reading and one wants to connect with a community of other readers online or in school/university, etc. Obviously if one doesn't read these genres, this is a whole foreign world, but it is increasingly the state of mainstream fiction reading, and AI slop is a problem for them that you may be asked to help avoid if you are the nerdy loved one of such a reader.
    - wredcoll 3mo ago
      > An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), Or, you know, you've just read the old books already because they came out 10 years ago and that's a lot of time to read. I doubt it has anything to do with "romantasy" as a genre, anything that has people actually reading books, on a regular basis (as opposed to the people who mean reading as consuming one "notable" novel a year). In any case, epublishing has made a lot more books available and filtering through them was a difficult task even before AI increased the output dramatically. I've been saying for a while now there's a large untapped market for actually effective recommendation systems (almost certainly human driven given the demonstrated limitations of computer systems so far), as mentioned it was a problem to find "the good stuff" even among just self-published pre-ai books, now it's way beyond that. I guess to some degree it's the same basic problem as spam filtering, but considerably more nuanced and difficult.
paxys 3mo ago
So why not just disallow it entirely, if that’s the goal?
- JAlexoid 3mo ago
  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.
  - red-iron-pine 3mo ago
    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.
    - JAlexoid 3mo ago
      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
lubujackson 3mo ago
Sure, but how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music? This is new frontier of spam. So begins the Clone Wars...
- addaon 3mo ago
  > how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music? Is this their responsibility? Just restrict payment to the registered copyright holder or their delegate, require registration of copyright for music to be payment-eligible, and escalate the problem to a federal crime with (presumedly) federal enforcement, no? Sure, some people will commit federal crimes to get a payout, but it's gotta reduce the problem massively.
bko 3mo ago
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 or curate my playlist, but it's just work. I would love a stream of AI generated music in a particular style I can work to.
- atrus 3mo ago
  You see that a lot in AI (and honestly, other discussions) where people with differing requirements are talking past each other. Some people are listening to music as an experience, internalizing lyrics, empathizing with the feeling and vibes of the artist. Others are just wanting something pop-y as background noise while they do work. They come together and since they're arguing for different needs, the whole thing turns into a mess.
  - platevoltage 3mo ago
    It's still silly. We have decades and decades of pop music, and really any kind of music you could possibly want. What AI SHOULD be used for is matching these people with some of the music made over the course of human history that they might like, not feeding them pig slop.
    - JAlexoid 3mo ago
      We have a lot of pop-slop, now it's AI slop. There's a reason why a few artists persist through the decades, while others just fade into obscurity.(think of how long Madonna, Cher have been around)
- tedajax 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- platevoltage 3mo ago
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

DobarDabar 3mo ago

[dead]

mattmatheus 3mo ago

Not sure about the stated principal, but I do think it follows the policy nicely. Yes, you can upload your AI generated music, but it will be tagged as such, and you cannot profit from it.

fxwin 3mo ago
The issue i have with it will depend heavily on implementation, i can see cases where songs that i would consider "produced and written" by people don't qualify for royalties under Tidal's guidelines. (I intentionally left out the "performed" part, since digital music production is way past the point where this was an easy and/or meaningful distinction)

Grombobulous 3mo ago

Isn’t it true that AI generated music holds no legal copyright?

gonzalohm 3mo ago
Why is that? And who draws the line? If I use a synthesizer to generate music, does that count as AI generated?
- Grombobulous 3mo ago
  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.
  - p-e-w 3mo ago
    Nothing is “created 100% by AI” though, because AIs don’t create things without human instructions.
    - oasisbob 3mo ago
      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.
      - make3 3mo ago
        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.
        oasisbob 3mo ago
        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.

injidup 3mo ago

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.

p-e-w 3mo ago
Indeed. When they say that AI music can’t be monetized, they of course mean “… except by us”.
oasisbob 3mo ago
> We will therefore not knowingly attribute royalties to music we identify as wholly AI-generated. Seems like Tidal is leaning on a probable lack of copyright for fully generated works here, otherwise wouldn't this run head-first into the music modernization act?
- ikari_pl 3mo ago
  i feel like it's going to be hard to defend whether, for example, handwriting and rewriting the lyrics and style prompts is enough to make it classified as non AI generated in the end. it's not like they'd make the subscription free if you listen to loyalties-free music only.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 3mo ago
> 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,
- 3mo ago

calny 3mo ago

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 https://tidal.com/terms) say that: > “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive of musical works and sound recordings, that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence, with limited or no direct human creative input beyond an initial text prompt or similar instruction. ... You acknowledge that AI detection technology may produce false positives or false negatives. And: > If you use TIDAL Upload, your Tracks may be scanned for the purpose of identifying whether the content is AI-Generated Content, and to label such content accordingly on the Tidal platform. You acknowledge that such scanning and labeling is performed on a best-efforts basis and that Tidal shall not be liable for any inaccuracies in AI detection or labeling. AI-Generated Content uploaded to Tidal is not eligible for monetization. If you believe your Tracks were erroneously tagged as AI-Generated, you can reach out to support@tidal.com.

summarybot 3mo ago
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 ;)
- FridgeSeal 3mo ago
  Nah name-and-shame them!
- Foreignborn 3mo ago
  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?
  - ozzmotik 3mo ago
    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 collage. now granted: I don't use AI to write my lyrics (with the exception of pieces framed as involving AI, eg. rap battles against AI), and furthermore beyond that, I also use my own musical productions from the past as audio uploads alongside my lyrics and my prompting strategy, so by definition I'd say my output is inherently going to be exploring sonic space that is not typically explored by most users, and as such if I am using my own output as the mechanism by which I'm evaluating this argument, then naturally it's probably going to be understandable as to why I find it so difficult to distinguish between AI and organic human effort. but either way. I've had people express some level of intrigue at the level of variation and such present in my output artifacts, which to me suggests that this might be a relevant dimension within which to evaluate this specific character or quality of music as machine generated or human generated... just some (admittedly not super well structured) thoughts it occurred to me to share.

vkou 3mo ago

The difference between AI and artists is that artists are humans, which should grant them more rights and fewer penalties than some fucking software. Artists don't get penalized, but for that reason, we should penalize the hell out of it. If a bunch of hyper intelligent space aliens came in and started squeezing the rest of us out of creative economic activity, they shouldn't be on an equal playing field either. Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.

fxwin 3mo ago
> Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines. Machines don't go out on their own to create and upload music, they do so under human instruction, so their output should be policed the same way we police other machine generated output directed by humans.
- dawnerd 3mo ago
  I guess you haven’t seen some of the agentic stuff?
  - fxwin 3mo ago
    I work with coding agents every day, I don't think they have ever started working on a project without me telling them to
    - kalleboo 3mo ago
      OpenClaw does this kind of stuff. People give it a "personality" and let it go wild doing whatever it wants - finding and contributing PRs to GitHub projects, and yes also making music. It was all the rage like 2-5 months ago.
      - fxwin 3mo ago
        And i would consider this as an agent doing things under human instruction

h4ny 3mo ago

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's really not a clear-cut problem. But your stance can be clear-cut, and in this messy world where there is no perfect solution one way or the other, your stance matters even more. You could either be seen as a fence sitter who allowed slop to happen, or someone who stands with human creativity battling against shitty people and their slop. Please stop this kind of fence-sitting reasoning if you care about people.

fxwin 3mo ago
I'm not sure which part of my comment comes across as fence sitting to you, but to clarify: - 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 <Field X> 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

laybak 3mo ago

[dead]