Maybe they should stop allowing it
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2026
178 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
83929 readers
2596 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They're probably the one doing it. Of course the distribution owners would try and cut out the content makers.
Tunes generated by LLM bots should never considered as music.
I personally started to use Qobuz. Their algorithm isn't great, their target group is more the more distinguished music listener but their library is pretty much as big as any others plus they do have the largest library of hi-res music too and they actually sell also hi-res and CD lossless music if that is of interest to you. Most importantly though, they have a "ban-AI-music" stance on their platform. Soon enough, one will have to rely on platforms like that if one does not want to wade through a sea of AI slop.
The downside is that Qobuz is a bit more expensive than others (while paying the most to artists however, as far as I know).
And here I am struggling and fighting with my distributor ever time I upload a new instrumental album because they can’t confirm that it’s all original work.
I have no idea what Deezer is, and I'm afraid if I ask, somebody is just going to say "DEEZER NUTS!!!" and I will realize it was a big prank.
It is a less shitty alternative to Spotify, while costing less. They are also paying artists considerably more.
The last sentence is a little scary to me, not because it's a bad thing, but because it's probably catnip to scammers/AI generators. I hope they can do a good job of detecting it and keeping those scammers at bay, and not paying them for unaware listeners' mistakes
As far as I have read they do a lot to prevent that. AI "artists" (shartists?) don't show in the all tab when searching, don't get added to radio mixes, and dont get any payments from Deezer. Their AI generated tagging seems pretty accurate, I just wish it was exposed in the API so other projects could use it
Self-gottem
You couldn't infer from the headline?
Music is a weird art form, because something sounding familiar is very important to our ear. Many people have a really hard time liking music that is too foreign to their taste and end up sticking with only a select few genres.
Where familiarity is important, AI can deliver easily. I would think as much as we hate the idea, there is a pretty significant market for AI-generated music, specifically because it's so predictable and follows convention to a tee.
There is indeed a market for people who don't care what is playing or who made it, and just want to hear the same familiar generic chords, rhythms, and vocals of whatever genre(s) they've grown up listening to. Not to be too blunt, but some people have no taste, and yes, they can eat slop and not notice the difference. Ok, good for them.
But those people are throwing fertilizer on AI weeds that will consume all the water and sunlight that nurtures actual music. That is really a problem.
There are also good reasons for people to use AI music. If you just want some music as background in a video you want to post somewhere, that totally is a legal nightmare here where I live. If you're some small business, that is even more nightmarish. Licensing songs is expensive and hard to do, so just generating some ok tune is the best way forward
I think people should be very careful about how dependent they become on such things, because inevitably if adoption ever does creep up the spike in prices of accessing those models is going to be astronomically more than having some jingle writer slap something together. Right now they're desperate for adoption but those servers aren't free to run. If they're ever going to turn a profit the fees for accessing these tools are going to be orders of magnitude more than any small business owner can afford, and by then, there won't be any aspiring new artists to take a cash job; they'll have either starved to death or moved on. You're basically Wille E. Coyote-ing yourself off an advertising cliff using AI like that, and same for other similar uses.
I hear that, but it really depends on the service and prompt (including services' internal prompt that is hidden) and result, which are many times black boxes.
I personally think artists & labels will have a tough time proving infringement for non-infringing outputs based purely on training data. But there's really no way of being sure that the "generated" and "uncopyrightable" AI track that's distilled from unlicensed source music is not itself infringing as a pure substantial similarity (or whatever your locality's infringement legal test is) question.
From Deezer’s website, the detection system tags songs that are either fully AI generated rather than produced or mastered with the help of AI tools. You can also appeal if you believe your music was falsely flagged.
I strongly oppose the use of generative AI in art but if it has to be done, it should at least be labeled as AI (ideally by the “creator” themselves).
I wonder how accurate the AI detection tools are though, considering how common are posts where AI detection tools used in schools falsely flagged student assignments.
There was a song I quite liked which had several million views on YouTube which I was surprised to see was flagged as AI generated. No one I showed it to it could hear any obvious signs of AI. The main red flags were that the artists released several albums in a short time span and had no online presence on any platform you would expect to see musicians on (Bandcamp, Discogs, etc) besides YouTube and the streaming ones.
I strongly oppose the use of generative AI in art but if it has to be done, it should at least be labeled as AI.
I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, but I don’t think there’s any situation in which AI ‘has’ to be used in art.
The main red flags were that the artists released several albums in a short time span and had no online presence on any platform you would expect to see musicians on (Bandcamp, Discogs, etc) besides YouTube and the streaming ones.
Honestly, those seem like pretty big red flags since that is how actual bands manage to actually get paid.
With good mastering post, you can mostly eliminate the "Suno shimmer", but other than artists using local models, the big ones (Suno, Udio, et al) have digital fingerprinting in the audio file... which is also part of the reason for the "Suno shimmer" sound.
Also, Suno is partnered with WMG since November... their model has license.
This (moreso for youtube music, since Deezer seems to not have a lot of East Asian labels signed) is a huge part of why I've been building out a selfhosted Navidrome.
Obviously there is the old school way of getting music. But Bandcamp is WAY more beneficial to the artists and ebay and Half Price Books are also awesome for grabbing music.
And combine all that with musicbrainz for scrobbling and discoverability of new bands.