6 ms·

Do any of the major streaming platforms have a stance against AI generated music?

devindotcom 5mo ago
bandcamp: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46605490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46605490
saaaaaam 5mo ago
No, not really. Spotify is trialling a voluntary “AI Credits” thing where people can highlight use of AI when they release music. https://support.spotify.com/lc/artists/article/ai-credits/ https://support.spotify.com/lc/artists/article/ai-credits/ The problem is that subjective judgements by streaming platforms on where an AI line is drawn in music production is difficult. If you human-write a song but use AI to produce a synth stem or bass stem and then mix it down and use AI mastering is that better or worse than if you use AI to help you write something but record with human musicians and a bit of AI assist? And what if you use AI entirely to write and compose but use human performers to record? And what if the AI is trained only on licensed content?
- add-sub-mul-div 5mo ago
  There's a whole spectrum from sfw to nsfw but we don't give up and allow porn on every platform because drawing the line is "difficult". We can use common sense and taste, with all their flaws.
  - TremendousJudge 5mo ago
    I wouldn't say that porn is not allowed on every platform. basically every mainstream "content posting" platform (fb, ig, tw, tiktok, etc) allows softcore porn, and in fact pushes it on users, both on content an on advertising. if the same was true with AI music I wouldn't bother with the platform
- chromacity 5mo ago
  Honestly, debating these corner cases feels like a distraction tactic. The reality is that the bulk of that 44% is total AI slop: one-sentence prompts entered into Suno to generate 1,000 tracks and extract money from subscribers who stream in the background. It's the same thing with writing. No one cares that you asked a chatbot to help you reword a paragraph in your essay. The problem is zero-effort slop delivered by the truckload to your social media feed.
  - ctoth 5mo ago
    If... If you're pulling from something called a feed ... Are you really surprised to get slop in it?
    - Kye 5mo ago
      You're thinking of a feed trough, like for pigs. This use of feed comes from news services.
  - harrall 5mo ago
    It’s not a corner case when you have to enforce it. Someone will end up in the middle and then you’ll be responsible for accepting or rejecting it. The bulk is obvious but the debate isn’t for the obvious.
    - chromacity 5mo ago
      But it doesn't. We have a problem. We can focus on addressing the problem without pre-adjudicating every hypothetical corner case. If your "work" is mostly AI, and if you don't disclose it, it goes to /dev/null. And yeah, you can get into a debate that it's unfair to reject 51% but allow 49%, but that's how the real world works - otherwise, nothing would ever get done. You also get a DUI for BAC of 0.08% but not 0.07%. That's not an argument for putting DUI laws on hold until we can figure out a more perfect approach.
      - saaaaaam 5mo ago
- gwern 5mo ago
  > The problem is that subjective judgements by streaming platforms on where an AI line is drawn in music production is difficult. This may be more of an economic problem. There is a stark difference between a music track with 1% human work/effort, and 0%. You can make many musical tracks if you have to do only 1% of the work, but you can't make >100x what you made without AI (Amdahl's law). While the latter can scale infinitely; you could upload a billion tracks if you wished, you're limited basically by bandwidth and automation. So a classifier or policy which permitted the 99% AI but banned the 100% AI may be adequate.

bandcamp: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46605490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46605490

No, not really. Spotify is trialling a voluntary “AI Credits” thing where people can highlight use of AI when they release music. https://support.spotify.com/lc/artists/article/ai-credits/ https://support.spotify.com/lc/artists/article/ai-credits/ The problem is that subjective judgements by streaming platforms on where an AI line is drawn in music production is difficult. If you human-write a song but use AI to produce a synth stem or bass stem and then mix it down and use AI mastering is that better or worse than if you use AI to help you write something but record with human musicians and a bit of AI assist? And what if you use AI entirely to write and compose but use human performers to record? And what if the AI is trained only on licensed content?

add-sub-mul-div 5mo ago
There's a whole spectrum from sfw to nsfw but we don't give up and allow porn on every platform because drawing the line is "difficult". We can use common sense and taste, with all their flaws.
- TremendousJudge 5mo ago
  I wouldn't say that porn is not allowed on every platform. basically every mainstream "content posting" platform (fb, ig, tw, tiktok, etc) allows softcore porn, and in fact pushes it on users, both on content an on advertising. if the same was true with AI music I wouldn't bother with the platform
chromacity 5mo ago
Honestly, debating these corner cases feels like a distraction tactic. The reality is that the bulk of that 44% is total AI slop: one-sentence prompts entered into Suno to generate 1,000 tracks and extract money from subscribers who stream in the background. It's the same thing with writing. No one cares that you asked a chatbot to help you reword a paragraph in your essay. The problem is zero-effort slop delivered by the truckload to your social media feed.
- ctoth 5mo ago
  If... If you're pulling from something called a feed ... Are you really surprised to get slop in it?
  - Kye 5mo ago
    You're thinking of a feed trough, like for pigs. This use of feed comes from news services.
- harrall 5mo ago
  It’s not a corner case when you have to enforce it. Someone will end up in the middle and then you’ll be responsible for accepting or rejecting it. The bulk is obvious but the debate isn’t for the obvious.
  - chromacity 5mo ago
    But it doesn't. We have a problem. We can focus on addressing the problem without pre-adjudicating every hypothetical corner case. If your "work" is mostly AI, and if you don't disclose it, it goes to /dev/null. And yeah, you can get into a debate that it's unfair to reject 51% but allow 49%, but that's how the real world works - otherwise, nothing would ever get done. You also get a DUI for BAC of 0.08% but not 0.07%. That's not an argument for putting DUI laws on hold until we can figure out a more perfect approach.
    - saaaaaam 5mo ago
gwern 5mo ago
> The problem is that subjective judgements by streaming platforms on where an AI line is drawn in music production is difficult. This may be more of an economic problem. There is a stark difference between a music track with 1% human work/effort, and 0%. You can make many musical tracks if you have to do only 1% of the work, but you can't make >100x what you made without AI (Amdahl's law). While the latter can scale infinitely; you could upload a billion tracks if you wished, you're limited basically by bandwidth and automation. So a classifier or policy which permitted the 99% AI but banned the 100% AI may be adequate.