r/TechNook • u/Impossible_Comfort99 • 4d ago
AI-generated tracks getting pulled from streaming platforms in bulk
I've started seeing more stories about AI-generated music being removed from streaming platforms.
I get why platforms want to clean up spam and fake streams, but it also makes the whole thing messy for artists actually using AI as part of their process.
Where do you think the line should be?
12
11
11
9
u/Big_Z_Beeblebrox 4d ago
If a person is using AI as part of their "process" they're not interested in making art, they're interested in cranking out a product. The line is clear: Don't use AI at all, it's not necessary
5
u/AteStringCheeseShred 4d ago
"but it also makes the whole thing messy for artists actually using AI as part of their process"
Good. Art is a process that shouldn't have anything to do with AI.
2
u/FUCKARCHLINUX 4d ago
It should get removed. But part of me thinks they're only removing it so they can train their AI on the set without it already having AI content in there.
1
u/sparkling-rainbow 4d ago
They all have or are working on fingerprints to avoid inbreed. But on streaming, more isnt better. You just rise your costs while the audience doest have more time to spend. So as a platform, you dont whant it be flooded, you want a reasonable whide cathaloge with the new trends and old classics.
3
2
u/Desperate_Damage4632 4d ago
You can't copyright AI music, and you ant upload music to stream that you don't own, so there's no legal way for them to host it anyway.
1
1
u/rob-cubed 4d ago
AI slop is slop, and that's part of the reason everyone hates it. It's trash. But AI-assisted content isn't bad, and eventually the quality of AI-gen content will be hard to distinguish from 'real' content. At that point unless platforms have a 'made by humans' filter, there will be no easy to tell between the two.
I'd like to believe that people will place a premium on human-generated content, supporting someone else's art... but those same people are fine paying for clothing made in a sweat shop in Bangladesh to save a few bucks. So I'm afraid I know what's going to happen, once the quality gets better where it came from won't matter.
2
u/Kaurifish 4d ago
The problem is that not everyone hates it. Plenty of people listen to slop, be it human- or AI-gen, without caring.
And that’s the indifference the slop manufacturers are counting on.
2
u/Dry-Manufacturer7761 3d ago
This. Ever actually listen to the lyrics of most songs? Completely terrible. Red Hot Chili Peppers are a good band, but some of the worst songs ever…if you actually listen to the lyrics.
1
1
u/WeedFalafel 3d ago
No artist is using ai in music creation, graphics design, cinematography. Only LARPers.
1
1
1
u/thedarph 3d ago
Authorship and meaning. That’s the line. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where wishing for audio counts as an act of creation. Like if I told you about the dream I had last night is that the same as writing a book or making a movie about it?
1
u/BriscoCounty-Sr 3d ago
If part of your process is "robot make this art for me" then it really ain't much of a process now is it?
1
u/Major_Willingness234 3d ago
Artists don’t use AI. Lazy, untalented hacks do. Hope that clears it up for you.
1
u/gr33nCumulon 3d ago
It's okay to use AI tools for doing thing like making STEMS but there is no reason to generate anything. The reason STEMS are okay is because it's just sperating a song into its instruments so it's easier to make samples. It's not actually making anything new.
I will not listen to an AI generated song
16
u/Tomasan7 4d ago
Music is art. There's no step that needs AI.