| ▲ | threepts 6 hours ago |
| On an off note, I do not get why moral puritans disparage the general public for listening to AI songs? If they are "soulless" then they should close their ears rather than trying to maim others. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | OneDeuxTriSeiGo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are soulless because often they are AI covers of existing songs trying to mimic the original artist so that they get substituted in as replacements for the original with limited realization on the part of the average listener. Which of course that means the AI covers get the listens and the associated revenue instead of the original artist. So instead of listening to "System of a Down", you get a cover from the AI artist "System of the Down" and now that you listened to that cover you start getting more covers in your recommended from them and eventually you are getting covers from them instead of from the real band since you started listening to them instead. And even if it's not that extreme, the listener is getting served these knock off covers with no actual person behind them. If the listeners don't realise that's what's happening it will reflect poorly on the original creator and hurt their listenership (which wouldn't be impacted if shitty AI covers weren't being subbed in). It even gets to the point that now you have artists who have upcoming albums and AI cover artist bots scrape the song list and upload auto generated "covers" of the unreleased original song to try and capture listens that would go to the original artist while people go to pull their music up prior to, on, and after release day of their new album. Overwhelmingly AI songs on Spotify are autogenerated slop from bots trying to leech off of actual artists by creating a shitty knock off to skim some cash out of those artists' paycheck. (This is distinct from actual cover artists who at least contribute their own unique human touch to the covers). If you want to make music and you happen to use AI in the process then whatever but Spotify has a major AI cover/clone problem. |
| |
| ▲ | threepts 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | "soulless" is a term YOU label people with for enjoying a certain type of music. This is your problem, not the people's problem for enjoying this sort of music. But I agree with your second point, an AI should NOT BE able to mimic a brand/personality such that it brings harm to them. Your third point, actually it is NOT distinct from actual cover artists, because if I tomorrow pick a system of the down hum and then remix it and it gets popular, their automated DRM system will probably C&D me and their label sue me to oblivion using the same AI. | | |
| ▲ | OneDeuxTriSeiGo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > system of the down System of a Down > then remix it and it gets popular, their automated DRM system will probably C&D me and their label sue me to oblivion using the same AI. Yes it will because remixing is not a cover. Remixing is a derivative work of the recording and therefore is subject to the terms of the mechanical license on the recording itself. The copyright on a recording is legally distinct from the copyright on the composition (the melody and lyrics). You are protected under a provision of the Copyright Act of 1909 to modify and perform your own renditions of the original composition (provided it has been recorded previously). Provided you supply some level of original creative input and don't use the recording in your work, the original rights holder are required to provide you at no cost what is called a "mechanical license" for your cover granting you the right to distribute and sell the recording of your copyright. In the past, granting of mechanical licenses was between parties (i.e. IP holder reaches out when they discover you made a cover and they grant you a license or you go to court and the court grants you the license. But as of 2021 a non profit body was formed under the guidance of the federal government to handle the blanket granting of mechanical licenses to any and all human covers (provided they did not use the original recording in their work). If you sample the original work at all then you are now creating a derivative work of the recording and you must negotiate for a mechanical license (which is not required to be free). Likewise if you remix it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bjt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The models that make AI songs were trained on real musicians' copyrighted works, without permission. It's kinda shitty to steal someone's works, then use them to build a machine to also steal their jobs. |
| |
| ▲ | qingcharles 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is copyright infringement stealing? Is this even copyright infringement? These philosophical questions come up often. I'm not sure I know the answers. | |
| ▲ | threepts 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Bruno Mars started as an Elvis Presley impersonator (likely without his permission as he was dead at that time), can we say he stole his job? People take ideas from other people all the time, my view is if machines do it, it isn't much of a different thing. | | |
| ▲ | avaer 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People have been killing people for ages, so nukes for everyone! | |
| ▲ | xdennis 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI nutters always use this argument that bots are merely doing what people are doing: "a person learning from 100 books is just the same as an LLM learning from 100 million books". If you own an apple tree, and (as is common in some countries) a child leans over your fence to grab an apple, you don't lose sleepless nights over it. But if a corporation comes over and leans over with its 10 meter long robotic arm and takes all your apples then it's a disaster. Scale matters. People don't care for small "losses" because we want other people to prosper. But AI steals from everyone and brings prosperity only to Amodei and Altman. | | |
| ▲ | threepts 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Knowledge is not an apple tree, my machine can read all the 100 million books and those 100 million books still remain there. You act like it's an zero sum game, it is not. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Barrin92 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >then they should close their ears rather than trying to maim others criticism isn't maiming anyone. I don't know about you but I was taught that debating culture is part of a living society. A lot of people think that the human centipede dopamine machine that is "AI art" is a disaster for us and instead of acting like the three monkeys as mature adults we can critique this the idea that we should "close our ears" is of course itself the very appeal of AI content, it never challenges or complains, that's the appeal of AI music, AI boyfriends and so on. |
| |
| ▲ | threepts 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Criticism is healthy and != maiming, but it is apparent that mainstream culture nowadays labels "AI Art" consumers as dumb and tasteless. I think this is maiming. >"the idea that we should "close our ears" is of course itself the very appeal of AI content, it never challenges or complains, that's the appeal of AI music, AI boyfriends and so on." -> People also do shrooms that arguably have a similar effect, who am I to judge? | | |
| ▲ | Barrin92 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is dumb and tasteless and nobody's being maimed for pointing that out, it's DFW's Infinite Jest made real. The psychedelics and shrooms analogy is very appropriate, because it gave us a generation of escapist idiots who fried their brains and retreated into their own fantasies. Instead of going out, producing, debating and collectively making art. Who are you not to judge? It should be judged, it's narcissistic and solipsistic. if the AI psychosis is comparable to the 60s and 70s at least there's hope it'll exhaust itself as quickly. | | |
| ▲ | threepts 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do not agree with what you say at all.
some people are usually afraid of going out because people like you label them narcissistic and solipsistic so they stick to LLMs. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | emkoemko 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| because no one wants to be forced to listen to the slop? some reason spotify is allowing them to dump a lot of ai "music" and then they get played without you knowing |
| |
| ▲ | threepts 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No one is forcing you to listen to Spotify. You are free to buy a turntable and play all the non-sloppy music. Seeing the popularity of some AI songs, people DO want to hear to this sort of music. | | |
| ▲ | emkoemko 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | i pay to listen to music now i have to not use discovery mode because spotify wants to earn more money by pushing ai slop to its listeners to not have to pay real artists | | |
| ▲ | nomel 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > because spotify wants to earn more money by pushing ai slop to its listeners If people listen to AI songs, how does Spotify get a bigger cut, as you seem to be suggesting [1]? Or are you suggesting that Spotify is generating/has rights to this music? [1] https://artists.spotify.com/royalties-guide | |
| ▲ | threepts 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI slop is quite antithetical to Spotify's business model, they would actually lose money if say tomorrow, AI music dominates the charts, when AI music gets that good, people can just generate their own music and leave Spotify back in the mud. It's probably the "AI artists" themselves generating false engagement and manipulating the algo for discovery. |
|
|
|
