There is plenty of artists making music analogous to 80's and 90's classics. Not to mention millions of 80's and 90's songs she's never heard.

I constantly find myself discovering new 90s Boombap, Hip Hop beats and tracks from underground artists. Unfortunately a ton of these aren't on Spotify, although they exist on YouTube in near endless capacity.

A lot of my favorite songs of all time aren't great just because they sound nice, but they are great because they have immense meaning. Alice in Chains is one of the all time greatest bands and their lyrical messaging means so much, with the passing of Layne from a drug overdose the songs have a raw, visceral feeling. Many of their songs are explaining the struggle, they are deeply personal. That is lost with AI Music.

I also want to state that I think this is the perfect use-case for generative AI. You have a desire, and you use the AI to scratch your particular itch. Where it goes wrong is the people who want to make a quick buck by shoveling out heaps of random crap in the hopes that there will be some clicks to generate revenue. I mean someone is going to accidentally discover the prompt for the next "Baby Shark", get a billion views, and then the real onslaught will begin.

I did the same too. I listen exclusively to my own songs made with the help of AI.

My styles are orchestra and symphony pop, which I find rare these days. Even if it exists, the lyrics might not be something that I enjoy.

So I just write my own lyrics, decides on the melodies, and put it to AI to create a polished version.

Do I feel emotional when I listen to it? Of course, its my own lyrics that I wrote. Of course I sing along with it because its the melodies I chose.

And its even more emotional because I relate to it.

Someone can create some songs with billion listeners and emotional for others, but if it doesn’t relate to me. What am I supposed to feel?

My listener wont be able to relate with me personally because they don’t know me. But they might be able to resonates with my songs because it triggers specific memories or emotions for them. And for me that’s enough. Let the songs be the one that they resonates with.

I find super HARD to believe that we ran out of musicians doing music in the styles of the 80s/90s maybe your friend just doesn't want to search for new music, and that is ok, it's ok to be lazy, not a crime; but saying nobody is making such music is a sad excuse.

> Who else is going to make new songs for her?

I doubt she has exhausted all the (old) music made in the 80s and 90s. It's not a problem with supply, but discovery. Ironically, Suno probably had to overcome that challenge while gathering training data.

Not entirely comparable, but it's easier to find in Korea. "I do" by I-dle [formerly (G)I-dle] for example, has a wonderful 80s sound.

There are millions of people making music in an ever-expanding set of genres. The idea that no one is making 80s or 90s style music is absurd. I guess she can listen to slop but maybe just look around a little instead?

Edit: slop not slob

I might be an outlier, but I grew up listening to some genres that have fallen out of fashion, and I don't feel like I need more songs from them--we've explored enough of what they can do. What I miss from the 90's isn't third-wave ska as people trying things and bizarre songs becoming hits.

She's in luck:

https://youtu.be/6JCLY0Rlx6Q?si=xZvid6TWR66LTqhE

I'm still discovering music from "my era". Music doesn't have to be new to be new to you.

The large number of actual bands from that era still around?

Indeed. I've heard a few compositions that I knew were AI-generated and still thought were pretty good.

I think the op mean people writing stuff like: "Amazing what a human soul can create", "This is such a beautiful song. I'm so happy it's not another AI slop" type of comments. I have a fairly popular youtube channel with AI generated music, I make it very obvious that it's AI, yet I still get hundreds of those comments a month.

> carefully sourced and labelled like Spotify

I wish I had your Spotify.

Over the last few months they have served me multiple slop tracks in the discover weekly playlist. Probably more I didn't notice when just listening without focus, but several had generic artist name without bio and dozens of nearly identical tracks.

Yeah I listen to random ambient music, probably all AI, as background noise when I’m working or reading

This isn't possible on Youtube right now. The automatic tools for detecting LLM-generated content have far too many false positives. And obviously no one is going to pay an army of people to curate the content. The best thing right now is to rely on the reputation of individual channels that you are personally familiar with.

Youtube's automatically applied label will be worse than useless unless they've made some remarkable breakthrough, which I doubt. They'd be better off just using creator-applied labels, and of course if they would label anything that Youtube itself contaminated with automatic translations or its ilk, that would be good too.

It's a nice thought but it ignores that there is so much interesting, informative media on youtube that just does not exist anywhere else, at all.

I'm not particularly religious but I did give up Twitter for lent as a test of my self control.

I highly recommend everyone occasionally do this with social media as it was somewhat eyeopening how much better I felt overall. This was mostly due to not being exposed to the doom scrolling you can eventually get pulled into (despite efforts not to).

I did miss feeling like I was "plugged in" to the stream of news/memes etc though.

YMMV but def recommend.

A nicer way that also works on mobile is turning the watch history off. C

> If you think you can't quit youtube

Just stop paying for Pro. I made it less than one day with the ads.

It's somewhat deceiving practice IMO although it could simply be my insecurity.

Along with the empty page, it says "Your watch history is off" in bold then says "... change your setting ... to get the latest video tailored to you"

It sounds as if I'm missing out on latest videos which, technically true, but I wonder if that wording is necessary. It could've just said "Update the settings here to get recommendations". But of course for-profit companies need to make profit :)

Yeah exactly, they could have made their service useful by showing your subscriptions instead. Yet, they decided to enshittify for people who want choices.

This attitude of "individual cases don't matter as long as the average case is somewhat covered" is exactly why the world's going to shit.

The parent post's worry is warranted, IMO.

People feel strongly about AI generated content; this is a case where false positives can destroy credibility and disrupt careers.

"Works most of the time" isn't good enough here.

And this philosophy will only lead to Kafkaesque nightmare scenarios for 1-2% of the population, so we're still coming out ahead.

This definitely needs substantiation. I've NEVER seen such usable tools EVER. AI flagging in general has always been very sketchy IME.

People make a living off this platform though, this could be really bad for someone that lives off of YouTube to have their videos labeled as AI generated. This would still be OK if there was a person at YouTube you could contact to manually review and reverse the decision, but that doesn’t really exist so there’s no one you can really appeal to in a timely manner.

Please tell me this is a joke, or that you're not building anything important at work. It's a very well known problem that YouTube's algorithmic moderation hurts a lot of honest creators, and their ability to make a living, when there is a false positive or is abused.

> something that mostly works most of the time

Problem is that at YouTube's scale the remaining "some of the time" ends up being a collossal figure. On top of that, YouTube's effective monopoly position magnifies the damage done by false positives.

They make a bunch of money off the videos, same as uploaded copyright material (before eventually taking them down).

> All they need to do is "randomly" label 99,999 of every 100,000 as AI and they'll be right 99.999% of the time.

Unfortunately that could still be true while labeling all human-crafted content as AI-created.

Not sure why you appear to be downvoted. Cryptographic provenance is indeed the only solution to humanities digital woes. But only the government could make that a rule so it's not going to happen - at least not in my lifetime.

People still admit to listening to Kanye since he started talking about his love of Hitler?

I absolutely hate those full-blown AI 'explainers' that just have AI voiceover and a bunch of auto-placed b-roll. I don't want to see them. But I don't think that falls in the same bucket as a creative short film with some AI-generated SFX or someone doing a tutorial with an AI-generated lofi track in the background.

Connecting to the creator of a work of art provides meaning, which makes the experience of art better and more interesting. It allows you to experience worlds other than your own. I don't go into deep dives of all music I listen to, but I do want the option for music I like.

If there's no one on the other side, then it's just stimulation. Which is fine if that's what you want. It's something like the difference between watching an OnlyFans model versus an erotic video your significant other made for you.

Based on measured studies, people are not able to discern AI generated music from real ones on average and to your point, I agree, if you enjoy the output then it doesn't make sense to suddenly change your initial opinion.

I do find that AI music tends to be too perfect and overtime using Suno also gets old and I'm just listening to older releases

For art, I would rather support humans over AI

I can see not wanting to participate in the road to creating individualized heaven-banned digital silos for ourselves.

Are you being obtuse or can you really not understand this. Your girlfriend writes you a letter once a week while she’s away for the summer. Misses you, loves you, can’t stand being apart. You find out later she paid a service to write the letters. Who cares, the letters were nice right?

I want to share a post from the Red Hand Files blog written by musician Nick Cave, because I think he explains it more eloquently than I could.

---

From: https://www.theredhandfiles.com/considering-human-imaginatio...

In Yuval Noah Harari’s brilliant new book 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, he writes that Artificial Intelligence, with its limitless potential and connectedness, will ultimately render many humans redundant in the work place. This sounds entirely feasible. However, he goes on to say that AI will be able to write better songs than humans can. He says, and excuse my simplistic summation, that we listen to songs to make us feel certain things and that in the future AI will simply be able to map the individual mind and create songs tailored exclusively to our own particular mental algorithms, that can make us feel, with far more intensity and precision, whatever it is we want to feel. If we are feeling sad and want to feel happy we simply listen to our bespoke AI happy song and the job will be done.

But, I am not sure that this is all songs do. Of course, we go to songs to make us feel something – happy, sad, sexy, homesick, excited or whatever – but this is not all a song does. What a great song makes us feel is a sense of awe. There is a reason for this. A sense of awe is almost exclusively predicated on our limitations as human beings. It is entirely to do with our audacity as humans to reach beyond our potential.

It is perfectly conceivable that AI could produce a song as good as Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit, for example, and that it ticked all the boxes required to make us feel what a song like that should make us feel – in this case, excited and rebellious, let’s say. It is also feasible that AI could produce a song that makes us feel these same feelings, but more intensely than any human songwriter could do.

But, I don’t feel that when we listen to Smells Like Teen Spirit it is only the song that we are listening to. It feels to me, that what we are actually listening to is a withdrawn and alienated young man’s journey out of the small American town of Aberdeen – a young man who by any measure was a walking bundle of dysfunction and human limitation – a young man who had the temerity to howl his particular pain into a microphone and in doing so, by way of the heavens, reach into the hearts of a generation. We are also listening to Iggy Pop walk across his audience’s hands and smear himself in peanut butter whilst singing 1970. We are listening to Beethoven compose the Ninth Symphony while almost totally deaf. We are listening to Prince, that tiny cluster of purple atoms, singing in the pouring rain at the Super Bowl and blowing everyone’s minds. We are listening to Nina Simone stuff all her rage and disappointment into the most tender of love songs. We are listening to Paganini continue to play his Stradivarius as the strings snapped. We are listening to Jimi Hendrix kneel and set fire to his own instrument.

What we are actually listening to is human limitation and the audacity to transcend it. Artificial Intelligence, for all its unlimited potential, simply doesn’t have this capacity. How could it? And this is the essence of transcendence. If we have limitless potential then what is there to transcend? And therefore what is the purpose of the imagination at all. Music has the ability to touch the celestial sphere with the tips of its fingers and the awe and wonder we feel is in the desperate temerity of the reach, not just the outcome. Where is the transcendent splendour in unlimited potential? So to answer your question, Peter, AI would have the capacity to write a good song, but not a great one. It lacks the nerve.

I thought about "poisoning" in this context as well. Even if there is not that much AI, if there is enough that you start second guessing every other comment, I start thinking what am I doing there.

_before_? youtube is like the top 1000 creators / influencers / celebrities, 5% actual videos, and the rest is slop of various types for me.

The search is entirely gone and will straight up not list regular content that was made by humans, but it will absolutely surface the cheap AI-voices that can't say HVAC fluently.

Makes sense for youtube, too. For the average person, that seems to be enough, the ads are the same value, and people who dislike that probably have a large overlap with people who use adblockers and don't impulsively spend money on the latest browser-game, miracle cure for cancer, or financial advice from random scammers.

No one will click a video that has the ai tag though.

Also they're probably trying to prevent lawmakers from coming up with stricter limits. "We're already marking AI videos as AI, no need to change!"

They don't really want to label ads as ads (no advertiser really does...); they're forced by regulations from multiple countries.

Honestly, that might get me to subscribe.

Yes, like filtering out shorts.

/s

Some searches might have 99% videos I want filtered out.

The individual creator can turn that off in settings — however, it was enabled automatically for everyone, and creators have to know to turn it off...

Who posts raw output from cameras anywhere? This doesn't seem useful outside some niche use-cases (like security camera footage). At a minimum just about every recording is going to be re-compressed for streaming.

Leica started doing this a few years ago in response to the first wave of AI images[0]. Other, bigger manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Sony as well I believe) have also joined, though with less fanfare. Adobe is in the loop.

As someone with a passing interest in infosec and cryptography, I'm sceptical of the long-term viability of this kind of product; it only takes one person successfully extracting a signing key to undermine the entire project.

    [0] https://leica-camera.com/en-int/news/partnership-greater-trust-digital-photography-leica-and-content-authenticity-initiative

You still ultimately have the analogue hole here - pull the camera apart, splice your own hardware somewhere between the sensor and the thing that adds the signatures (or in front of the sensor).

Pointing the camera at a screen could potentially evade that.

wouldn't that just encourage monopolistic behavior and lockdown of these devices?

they're already locked down as-is.

YouTube scale is Google specific

It already is quite impossible. Just generate something decent with lower quality. Then maybe take screen recording of the output. Voila.

Yeah, like Google doesn't know other hundreds of companies are also generating videos and will without the slightest shred of doubt will use reinforced learning to bypass this detection, meaning directly asking Google's AI if a picture they modified is AI or not to improve their algorithms, they know vouching for video is as useful as vouching for AI generated texts, zero.

I assume "require" is meant in the terms-of-service sense.

You can change the audio track back to the original.

Not sure if it remembers your preference, though, so if it doesn't that probably grates.

Not if you Airplay to your TV. I get random foreign languages when I watch English speaking YouTubers. No way to enable subtitles or change the language. It's a known bug according to the internet.

The problem is that it doesn't even respect this choice. My native language is not English and most of the videos in this languages will be auto transcript to English. Even the last time I changed both the language and country and YouTube still managed to auto transcript to English.

The solution is a simple toggle to turn it off, not pushing it to our throat.

That just tells it which languages to serve if the video has multiple tracks, including Ai-generated ones. "Keep original language" should be the default, or at least an opt-in.

And what about the atrocious title auto-translations? I'm in France, my browser is set to accept EN-us and FR-fr as languages, and my Youtube is in EN. And yet it keeps auto-translating the titles of some French videos. And the translation is so awful, it mistranslates many things and translates literally some obvious puns, that I can't believe they're using Gemini for this. They must have repurposed a 5-year old version of Google Translate. It is not consistent either, the titles are translated in the home page, but not in the channel's page.

I don’t know that Settings -> languages is obscure

I don't know German. That's why I'm looking up German language tests.

Anything more competent than Microsoft Sam counts as realistic in my book. If their definition excludes narration that would be weird.

Their detection might not look at audio right now though.

Ok, updated above with the other link in the toptext.