▲ 456 ▼ Deezer says 44% of songs uploaded to its platform daily are AI-generated | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com) submitted 6 months ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works 40 points 6 months ago (10 children) Sure thing DJGPT, whatever makes you happy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] Grimy@lemmy.world -16 points 6 months ago (9 children) I don't think it belongs on platforms like Deezer but it's silly to not call it music.You can hate how it's made but the bar for something to be music isn't dependant on the fact. Downvote me I guess. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 months ago (5 children) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. This whole AI-art fucktrain is entirely propped up by people who never made art before suddenly thinking they know something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (2 children) My issue is more about not calling it music. Imo, if it's groovy and my brain enjoys it, it's music. There's some music I seriously don't enjoy as well but I still consider it music because someone does. That being said, I don't label AI stuff as "made". I'm quick with making the distinction when sharing with friends and stuff. I agree with that part. Although it becomes blurry at times. Making something with samples is still making it, what about making it with AI generated samples? I don't consider it stealing in any case, much too transformative imo. I think we should separate the platforms but I'm not sure where certain things should land. It's all music for me though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] techt@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 child) Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself! I wanted to jump in to potentially clear up a difference of semantics, y'all are just using different interpretations of a phrase and I think it's worth exploring. If I take the person you originally replied to and continue the thought on my own, I think "it shouldn't be called music" is trying to express that "this content should be fundamentally distinct from music because it displaces artists who, as a group, are finding it increasingly hard to sustain themselves on their art alone". If your relationship with music stops at something to tap your foot to, then you may or may not appreciate the value music has for society in the form of things like expression, protest, criticism, unity, and faith. Every time we listen to a bot-generated song, it takes a listen away from a human artist and pushes us toward a world eventually devoid of those artistic contributions. Whether or not it fits into the same musical category as human-generated media isn't really the point worth talking about (it's trained on that after all, of course it's similar!). What we need is a way to keep it from displacing human-generated art, and I don't think calling it music or not is enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 6 months ago Is an AI generated image not an image? Is AI generated text not text? The discussion is not about the quality or ethics. It's simply about the definition of the medium. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com -14 points 6 months ago (1 child) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. People were saying the same thing about sampling in hip hop. Yeah if you do a 1 to 1 copy of a song then that's not making art but if you take elements from a song and rearrange them then that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago And there have been a lot of discussions over the decades over artists/"aritists" who overly sampled a song and became orders of magnitude bigger than the original artist. Its a balancing act. Most people aren't going to get too annoyed if someone uses generative AI to help build a backing track or a beat to go with their song. The issue is that so much of this slop is "make a song like this" from scratch. And while there is a lot to be said about manufactured acts and the role of major labels... one of the few good things about spotify et al destroying the music industry is that it has become so much easier for smaller independent artists to get a foothold. And all this does is add more slop to push them back out. And the difficulties with detecting slop will mean people will be a lot less likely to ever check out a smaller band when they can instead listen to whatever the latest major act that beyonce et al vouched for is. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago (2 children) On the contrary that soulless shit belongs to garbage platforms that is killing the music industry. I am not debating with you what music means to me, please understand that MR. DJGPT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) You really thought the DJGPT was clever enough to use it twice, huh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 months ago Oh apologies if that offended you as i say in my language: كس اخت اللي نفضك permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Grimy@lemmy.world -16 points 6 months ago (9 children) I don't think it belongs on platforms like Deezer but it's silly to not call it music.You can hate how it's made but the bar for something to be music isn't dependant on the fact. Downvote me I guess. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 months ago (5 children) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. This whole AI-art fucktrain is entirely propped up by people who never made art before suddenly thinking they know something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (2 children) My issue is more about not calling it music. Imo, if it's groovy and my brain enjoys it, it's music. There's some music I seriously don't enjoy as well but I still consider it music because someone does. That being said, I don't label AI stuff as "made". I'm quick with making the distinction when sharing with friends and stuff. I agree with that part. Although it becomes blurry at times. Making something with samples is still making it, what about making it with AI generated samples? I don't consider it stealing in any case, much too transformative imo. I think we should separate the platforms but I'm not sure where certain things should land. It's all music for me though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] techt@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 child) Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself! I wanted to jump in to potentially clear up a difference of semantics, y'all are just using different interpretations of a phrase and I think it's worth exploring. If I take the person you originally replied to and continue the thought on my own, I think "it shouldn't be called music" is trying to express that "this content should be fundamentally distinct from music because it displaces artists who, as a group, are finding it increasingly hard to sustain themselves on their art alone". If your relationship with music stops at something to tap your foot to, then you may or may not appreciate the value music has for society in the form of things like expression, protest, criticism, unity, and faith. Every time we listen to a bot-generated song, it takes a listen away from a human artist and pushes us toward a world eventually devoid of those artistic contributions. Whether or not it fits into the same musical category as human-generated media isn't really the point worth talking about (it's trained on that after all, of course it's similar!). What we need is a way to keep it from displacing human-generated art, and I don't think calling it music or not is enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 6 months ago Is an AI generated image not an image? Is AI generated text not text? The discussion is not about the quality or ethics. It's simply about the definition of the medium. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com -14 points 6 months ago (1 child) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. People were saying the same thing about sampling in hip hop. Yeah if you do a 1 to 1 copy of a song then that's not making art but if you take elements from a song and rearrange them then that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago And there have been a lot of discussions over the decades over artists/"aritists" who overly sampled a song and became orders of magnitude bigger than the original artist. Its a balancing act. Most people aren't going to get too annoyed if someone uses generative AI to help build a backing track or a beat to go with their song. The issue is that so much of this slop is "make a song like this" from scratch. And while there is a lot to be said about manufactured acts and the role of major labels... one of the few good things about spotify et al destroying the music industry is that it has become so much easier for smaller independent artists to get a foothold. And all this does is add more slop to push them back out. And the difficulties with detecting slop will mean people will be a lot less likely to ever check out a smaller band when they can instead listen to whatever the latest major act that beyonce et al vouched for is. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago (2 children) On the contrary that soulless shit belongs to garbage platforms that is killing the music industry. I am not debating with you what music means to me, please understand that MR. DJGPT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) You really thought the DJGPT was clever enough to use it twice, huh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 months ago Oh apologies if that offended you as i say in my language: كس اخت اللي نفضك permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BigJohnnyHines@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 months ago (5 children) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. This whole AI-art fucktrain is entirely propped up by people who never made art before suddenly thinking they know something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (2 children) My issue is more about not calling it music. Imo, if it's groovy and my brain enjoys it, it's music. There's some music I seriously don't enjoy as well but I still consider it music because someone does. That being said, I don't label AI stuff as "made". I'm quick with making the distinction when sharing with friends and stuff. I agree with that part. Although it becomes blurry at times. Making something with samples is still making it, what about making it with AI generated samples? I don't consider it stealing in any case, much too transformative imo. I think we should separate the platforms but I'm not sure where certain things should land. It's all music for me though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] techt@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 child) Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself! I wanted to jump in to potentially clear up a difference of semantics, y'all are just using different interpretations of a phrase and I think it's worth exploring. If I take the person you originally replied to and continue the thought on my own, I think "it shouldn't be called music" is trying to express that "this content should be fundamentally distinct from music because it displaces artists who, as a group, are finding it increasingly hard to sustain themselves on their art alone". If your relationship with music stops at something to tap your foot to, then you may or may not appreciate the value music has for society in the form of things like expression, protest, criticism, unity, and faith. Every time we listen to a bot-generated song, it takes a listen away from a human artist and pushes us toward a world eventually devoid of those artistic contributions. Whether or not it fits into the same musical category as human-generated media isn't really the point worth talking about (it's trained on that after all, of course it's similar!). What we need is a way to keep it from displacing human-generated art, and I don't think calling it music or not is enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 6 months ago Is an AI generated image not an image? Is AI generated text not text? The discussion is not about the quality or ethics. It's simply about the definition of the medium. permalink fedilink source parent [+] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com -14 points 6 months ago (1 child) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. People were saying the same thing about sampling in hip hop. Yeah if you do a 1 to 1 copy of a song then that's not making art but if you take elements from a song and rearrange them then that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago And there have been a lot of discussions over the decades over artists/"aritists" who overly sampled a song and became orders of magnitude bigger than the original artist. Its a balancing act. Most people aren't going to get too annoyed if someone uses generative AI to help build a backing track or a beat to go with their song. The issue is that so much of this slop is "make a song like this" from scratch. And while there is a lot to be said about manufactured acts and the role of major labels... one of the few good things about spotify et al destroying the music industry is that it has become so much easier for smaller independent artists to get a foothold. And all this does is add more slop to push them back out. And the difficulties with detecting slop will mean people will be a lot less likely to ever check out a smaller band when they can instead listen to whatever the latest major act that beyonce et al vouched for is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (2 children) My issue is more about not calling it music. Imo, if it's groovy and my brain enjoys it, it's music. There's some music I seriously don't enjoy as well but I still consider it music because someone does. That being said, I don't label AI stuff as "made". I'm quick with making the distinction when sharing with friends and stuff. I agree with that part. Although it becomes blurry at times. Making something with samples is still making it, what about making it with AI generated samples? I don't consider it stealing in any case, much too transformative imo. I think we should separate the platforms but I'm not sure where certain things should land. It's all music for me though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] techt@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 child) Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself! I wanted to jump in to potentially clear up a difference of semantics, y'all are just using different interpretations of a phrase and I think it's worth exploring. If I take the person you originally replied to and continue the thought on my own, I think "it shouldn't be called music" is trying to express that "this content should be fundamentally distinct from music because it displaces artists who, as a group, are finding it increasingly hard to sustain themselves on their art alone". If your relationship with music stops at something to tap your foot to, then you may or may not appreciate the value music has for society in the form of things like expression, protest, criticism, unity, and faith. Every time we listen to a bot-generated song, it takes a listen away from a human artist and pushes us toward a world eventually devoid of those artistic contributions. Whether or not it fits into the same musical category as human-generated media isn't really the point worth talking about (it's trained on that after all, of course it's similar!). What we need is a way to keep it from displacing human-generated art, and I don't think calling it music or not is enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 6 months ago Is an AI generated image not an image? Is AI generated text not text? The discussion is not about the quality or ethics. It's simply about the definition of the medium. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] techt@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (1 child) Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself! I wanted to jump in to potentially clear up a difference of semantics, y'all are just using different interpretations of a phrase and I think it's worth exploring. If I take the person you originally replied to and continue the thought on my own, I think "it shouldn't be called music" is trying to express that "this content should be fundamentally distinct from music because it displaces artists who, as a group, are finding it increasingly hard to sustain themselves on their art alone". If your relationship with music stops at something to tap your foot to, then you may or may not appreciate the value music has for society in the form of things like expression, protest, criticism, unity, and faith. Every time we listen to a bot-generated song, it takes a listen away from a human artist and pushes us toward a world eventually devoid of those artistic contributions. Whether or not it fits into the same musical category as human-generated media isn't really the point worth talking about (it's trained on that after all, of course it's similar!). What we need is a way to keep it from displacing human-generated art, and I don't think calling it music or not is enough. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 6 months ago Is an AI generated image not an image? Is AI generated text not text? The discussion is not about the quality or ethics. It's simply about the definition of the medium. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lifter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 6 months ago Is an AI generated image not an image? Is AI generated text not text? The discussion is not about the quality or ethics. It's simply about the definition of the medium. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com -14 points 6 months ago (1 child) If I steal someone else’s song and put my name on it nobody reasonable would say I made it. People were saying the same thing about sampling in hip hop. Yeah if you do a 1 to 1 copy of a song then that's not making art but if you take elements from a song and rearrange them then that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago And there have been a lot of discussions over the decades over artists/"aritists" who overly sampled a song and became orders of magnitude bigger than the original artist. Its a balancing act. Most people aren't going to get too annoyed if someone uses generative AI to help build a backing track or a beat to go with their song. The issue is that so much of this slop is "make a song like this" from scratch. And while there is a lot to be said about manufactured acts and the role of major labels... one of the few good things about spotify et al destroying the music industry is that it has become so much easier for smaller independent artists to get a foothold. And all this does is add more slop to push them back out. And the difficulties with detecting slop will mean people will be a lot less likely to ever check out a smaller band when they can instead listen to whatever the latest major act that beyonce et al vouched for is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago And there have been a lot of discussions over the decades over artists/"aritists" who overly sampled a song and became orders of magnitude bigger than the original artist. Its a balancing act. Most people aren't going to get too annoyed if someone uses generative AI to help build a backing track or a beat to go with their song. The issue is that so much of this slop is "make a song like this" from scratch. And while there is a lot to be said about manufactured acts and the role of major labels... one of the few good things about spotify et al destroying the music industry is that it has become so much easier for smaller independent artists to get a foothold. And all this does is add more slop to push them back out. And the difficulties with detecting slop will mean people will be a lot less likely to ever check out a smaller band when they can instead listen to whatever the latest major act that beyonce et al vouched for is. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago (2 children) On the contrary that soulless shit belongs to garbage platforms that is killing the music industry. I am not debating with you what music means to me, please understand that MR. DJGPT permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) You really thought the DJGPT was clever enough to use it twice, huh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 months ago Oh apologies if that offended you as i say in my language: كس اخت اللي نفضك permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 months ago (1 child) You really thought the DJGPT was clever enough to use it twice, huh? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 months ago Oh apologies if that offended you as i say in my language: كس اخت اللي نفضك permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Forsho@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 months ago Oh apologies if that offended you as i say in my language: كس اخت اللي نفضك permalink fedilink source parent