A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
If you can't tell the difference and it fits how you listen to music, I guess who cares?
AI software writing up musak doesn't matter to me because I don't listen to music that way.
I'll know the bands I'm listening to are real because I will have manually downloaded their music after reading reviews, magazine articles, or things like albumoftheyear.org just like I've been doing for the last half decade.
Music streaming services suck and not only because they will promote low cost bands to you. If you actually give a shit about music then stop being so lazy as to have an algorithm fill your trough with slop and then being surprised that it's AI slop.
Or just continue eating the slop if it pleases you. 🤷
It's a bit of a contrarian take, but I think people need to start adding more intentionality to how they live their lives. If music is unimportant to you, that's fine. But nowadays everyone just watches the shows they're recommended, listens to the music that is picked out by the algorithm, and reads what is fed to them in their feeds...figure out what's important to you and curate it for yourself.
Frequency.
A couple months ago, I found a really cool remake of one of the songs from KPop Demon Hunters. Everyone was doing covers of those songs, and many of them were indie artists, and I was rolling through them. So I found this video, and the video was just an image effect on the cover, which looked very AI-generated, but it's just the cover image, right? Who cares about that? I asked them in the comments if they would release their stuff on Apple Music. And they quickly responded — no, they're going to leave that money on the table, and have decided to stay exclusive to YouTube. Why would an artist choose to do that? Sure, a couple artists pulled their music off all other streaming platforms when they made their own, or their friends did. Garth Brooks has never been on streaming (except Amazon, I think they're the only one whose ethics he agrees with or something?). But most indie artists are on all the platforms. Maximise revenue. So these people saying no, not only to Apple Music — maybe they didn't like Apple kissing up to Trump — but also to Spotify, Amazon, Deezer, and all the rest. Turns out most of those platforms are stricter when it comes to AI music.
But here's the thing — their songs are still by the original artist. They're just stripping out the lyrics and putting new music to the lyrics. And that music is AI generated. Or so I later learned. I looked more into the YouTube channel, and they say they will make you a cover of a song, in any style you like, for $200. And they have hundreds of uploads... in a few months. Each song may have five or six variants. And the songs are still fine, but they have a generic, plastic, not real feel to them.
Of course, they also qualify the first thing in OP's summary, no social media presence. They just have the sales site, and the YouTube channel.
But maybe it's fine, or at least less bad, that they're taking existing songs and just remixing them with AI? Only they're saying the covers are better, and they're monetising the videos, so they're getting paid for the streams when that money should be going to the original artist. It's fine if they actually covered the song and recorded it, but having a computer do all the heavy lifting? Just seems scummy.
I'm not going to name & shame, but if you look up KPDH covers and see something that looks like AI slop with click-bait titles... you've probably found the right one. (They cover other stuff too, not just KPDH.)
Garth Brooks has never been on streaming (except Amazon)
Garth Brooks is available on every single music streaming service I know about. 🤨
AI imitates an overall sound. But doesn't care much about "instruments" individually. For simple minimal segments it can easily lay down a simple clear beat or melody. But as more gets added. The more the sound becomes muddy and generic. That and if you're familiar enough with a given instrument. It can often just sound "wrong". Again because the AI is imitating a sound, not an instrument generally.
But yeah. The other points stand. Social media presence and output are great indicators.
Midnight Darkwave is one I'm highly suspicious of. Super generic name. Not much presence beyond the streaming sites. I like the overall sound, but it often gets muddy and kind of droning. And not in the coldwave sort of way. Something a bit more inhuman, over processed, and mechanical.
There’s a pretty well known studio engineer that has a YouTube channel. He did a bit where even he couldn’t tell the difference.
We’re cooked at this point. There is really no need to bother learning a creative skill outside of it being just a personal desire to do.
There will be no money or career opportunities in the field of entertainment and arts.
I haven't listened to new music in over a decade. That includes hearing songs by contemporary artists. Everything sounds the same as it always did.