7 ms·

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 ear

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.

emkoemko 5mo ago
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 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago
    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
    - threepts 5mo ago
      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.
    - nomel 5mo ago
      > 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 https://artists.spotify.com/royalties-guide
bjt 5mo ago
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.
- threepts 5mo ago
  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.
  - xdennis 5mo ago
    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 5mo ago
      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.
  - avaer 5mo ago
    People have been killing people for ages, so nukes for everyone!
- qingcharles 5mo ago
  Is copyright infringement stealing? Is this even copyright infringement? These philosophical questions come up often. I'm not sure I know the answers.
OneDeuxTriSeiGo 5mo ago
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 5mo ago
  "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 5mo ago
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 5mo ago
>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 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago
    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 5mo ago
      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.
      - Dylan16807 5mo 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.

emkoemko 5mo ago

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 5mo ago
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 5mo ago
  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
  - threepts 5mo ago
    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.
  - nomel 5mo ago
    > 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 https://artists.spotify.com/royalties-guide

bjt 5mo ago

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.

threepts 5mo ago
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.
- xdennis 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago
    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.
- avaer 5mo ago
  People have been killing people for ages, so nukes for everyone!
qingcharles 5mo ago
Is copyright infringement stealing? Is this even copyright infringement? These philosophical questions come up often. I'm not sure I know the answers.

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 5mo ago

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 5mo ago
"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 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 5mo ago

>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 5mo ago
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 5mo ago
  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 5mo ago
    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.
    - Dylan16807 5mo ago