Three songs generated by artificial intelligence topped music charts this week, reaching the highest spots on Spotify and Billboard charts.

Walk My Walk and Livin’ on Borrowed Time by the outfit Breaking Rust topped Spotify’s “Viral 50” songs in the US, which documents the “most viral tracks right now” on a daily basis, according to the streaming service. A Dutch song, We Say No, No, No to an Asylum Center, an anti-migrant anthem by JW “Broken Veteran” that protests against the creation of new asylum centers, took the top position in Spotify’s global version of the viral chart around the same time. Breaking Rust also appeared in the top five on the global chart.

These three songs are part of a flood of AI-generated music that has come to saturate streaming platforms. A study published on Wednesday by the streaming app Deezer estimates that 50,000 AI-generated songs are uploaded to the platform every day – 34% of all the music submitted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 104 points 11 months ago (25 children)
  • [+] -56 points 11 months ago (23 children)

    Unless you enjoy music regardless of whether it's AI generated, in which case the future's going to have way more options.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 11 months ago (21 children)
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    Human slop isn't, either. The issue is that AI slop seems to top human slop now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    The absolute worst human art is better than the best machine art, because art is exclusively human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    because art is exclusively human.

    Which is a rather weak redeeming quality. I hate AI generated slop, but that does not excuse the existence of human generated slop. My argument is not "see how good AI is", but "see how much human creativity has fallen".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    If it gets topped by AI, it obviously and undeniably has.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -22 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    If 97% of listeners can't tell the difference then I'm not sure the point of quibbling the definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    So you're happy that you are being sold a lie?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    When you watch a movie with computer-generated special effects, are you happy watching a lie?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    The movie doesn't pretend that the main character has really jumped from a cliff onto a ship.

    It isn't lying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    There are plenty of movies where the CGI is creating elements that could well be real, like people or buildings. There was a movie recently where rather than go through the legal hassle of having live horses on set they just CGIed every last shot that contained a horse, even if they were just standing around in the background. You've no doubt watched plenty of CGI imagery that you had no idea was CGI. It looked good, that was all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    And how many times did the creators (not the marketing people) say that no CGI was used?

    I know it happened in several cases, and I try not to watch those movies.

    But others, where they are upfront about it, I think it is fair play.

    The key is ethics. Always has been.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    It is a question of authorship. What I don't approve of is zero effort AI slop. But the use of CGI in movies is OK because it serves the vision of the director. The usage of samples in music is OK if the use is transformative. Autotuning is pushing it but can be OK if use is limited or transformative. Even AI tools can be OK if authorship remains human. But an end-to-end pipeline of endless soulless AI generated slop is not OK. So it is very a question of degrees. AI generated/authored works should be labelled as such. Also the label should contain the degree to which AI was used. Not simply an either/or tag.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    AI music is a way to generate propaganda and spread manipulative messages for the masses in a way they won't even notice. This way they don't need to find the talent who are willing to make it, but also they can churn out songs faster. They just prompt the AI with some mean wishes and the recipe for a song people have formerly enjoyed, and the next "top hits" fall out. even if people are not looking for that shit, spotify's next song algorithm will helpfully boost them for some reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment