Do listeners devalue AI-generated pop music?

[bermudagold]

Ai or not, what goes viral now is usually paid for via view / listen botting. Things are more crooked than the radio payola days.

this is what flies over so many people's heads...you've just traded one set of gatekeepers for another...which is often the case when using technology to solve a problem...for every problem you solve with technology, you inadvertently create two new ones you didn't have before.

[zerocrossing]

"In conclusion, this study found no negative biases toward AI-generated pop music, with participants rating it more favorably on positive emotional dimensions like happiness, interest, awe, and energizing emotions. These findings suggest that AI-generated pop music may be perceived as a legitimate and emotionally engaging form of artistry, particularly among younger listeners who may be more familiar with and receptive to AI technologies. While limitations such as the potential lack of emotional depth and complexity in the AI-generated music warrant further exploration, the results offer a more nuanced perspective on commonly held assumptions about resistance to AI in creative domains. This may indicate that AI-generated music may be more readily accepted than previously assumed, and that evolving listener attitudes could reshape how creativity is understood in the digital age.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 212500101X

Study paid for by a government who is investing heavily in AI. Follow the money.

My b.s. detector is really good, and the amount of b.s. promoting A.I is really pegging the needle. Don't help it.

yeah multiple previous studies have found majority f listeners cant tell...but their feelings/opinions change once told...but to think we would have reached a point already where a critical mass has achieved blanket acceptance without bias, would be surprising...and kinda sad

Who is doing the studies? The tobacco industry said their studies showed that tobacco didn’t cause cancer. The fossil fuel industry did studies that they said that burning fossil fuels didn’t cause global warming.

It’s very important to always ask yourself three questions. Who is doing the study, who is funding it, and who stands to profit from the results.

Other questions that I ask are, who is asking for this? Was anyone clamoring for more music because there is some sort of new music shortage? Who benefits from AI generated music? Who is enjoying the prompt process? The music industry has already figured out how to extract almost all the wealth from artists. They’re still going to need to let a few slip by and become successful so the illusion that it’s possible to “make it” is maintained and they have someone to do live performances.

I’ve never in my life seen a marketing campaign like the one for AI. It’s so aggressive. When people were talking about the internet, it was all about what people could do with it. With most AI, it’s about what people can be replaced by it.

Now, as I’ve said before, I’m not really totally down on what people call AI. A lot of it is just machine learning with a new name. If you don’t like or care to learn audio production, and you want to turn the melody, lyrics and chords into full compositions using Suno, have at it. If asking for an entire song to be constructed from a prompt is fulfilling to you, have at it… though I suspect it isn’t. It’s like paying someone to go to the gym for you. No matter how specific you are about how the workout should happen, you will not benefit from it.

i'm not for AI in the arts at all really...but i cant live in a bubble of my feelings and opinions...that's why any real world data is always interesting

Again, the "study" was done by a government funded university. A government that's dedicated to being a player in AI.

Here's my data: No AI business has yet to turn a profit. It needs more customers to scale. They literally have stated that they think they'll turn a profit when AI can replace 9 out of 10 workers. I think you can do the rest of the math in your head for how that shakes out. I'm already seeing it in my industry. It doesn't matter if people can or can't tell AI from regular art if there's no one who can afford to buy anything because they've lost their jobs and the data center has now tripled my electricity bill and now there's water rationing. Great idea that, in a country where there are more guns than people.

[Tiles]

Here's my data: No AI business has yet to turn a profit.

You mean besides such small companies like:

• NVIDIA
• Palantir Technologies
• Midjourney
• Microsoft
• Amazon Web Services
• Google DeepMind
• ElevenLabs
• Cursor
• Runway
• LangChain
• Mistral AI
• Scale AI
• Databricks
• Hugging Face
• C3 AI
• UiPath

The list does not end here. And if something as basic as “no AI company is profitable” is already wrong, how accurate do you think the rest of your assumptions are?

Several parts of your answer are simply not true.

Multiple AI companies are already profitable or generating massive profits through AI products and infrastructure. NVIDIA alone is making absurd amounts of money from AI demand. Midjourney is reportedly highly profitable with a tiny team. Palantir, Microsoft, AWS and others are already monetizing AI very successfully.

And the “AI can only work if 90% of workers are replaced” narrative is also speculation, not an actual requirement for profitability. Most AI companies make money the same way software companies always did: subscriptions, enterprise licensing, APIs, cloud services and productivity tools.

If the foundation of the argument is already based on incorrect assumptions, the conclusions built on top of it become pretty questionable too.

Hate does not replace facts. And it is not a good advisor, either.

[zerocrossing]

Ai or not, what goes viral now is usually paid for via view / listen botting. Things are more crooked than the radio payola days.

At the suggestion of someone, I tried TikTok to see if I could find good music on there. Turns out, you can. Music that's obviously being made by real people, some of it live. I threw a few of my songs up there, and as soon as I did, I started getting a barrage of "how to drive engagement" tutorial posts, and guess what? The way to do it is to pay TikTok (owned by a far right billionaire) money, or else your content doesn't get put into rotation. It's literally pay-to-play. So help me make sense of this...

I worked to write the music.

I worked a job to buy all the necessary equipment and software to produce the music.

I worked to produce the music.

I pay an ISP to let me connect to the internet so I can post my music on someone else's site/app, one that uses content to draw viewers that they then shove ads at.

So if I want someone to actually listen to my music, I have to pay the Right Wing billionaire money, or else it's up to me to point people to my songs and hope that somehow it gets shared a lot and goes viral.

They'll give you a cut of the ad money, if you can get 1000 views in a month and you have 10,000 followers.

[zerocrossing]

Forget it, I'm out of this idiotic thread.

[Tiles]

I talk about facts. While you still pull propaganda links. But yeah, this page is of course absolutely right. Not like the first link in this post ...

Articles like this are not “wrong” they’re highlighting real risks like overvaluation, high compute costs, and uncertain long-term profitability.

But they guess, and the conclusion that“AI companies don’t make money” is incorrect.

Some AI companies are already highly profitable or generating massive revenue (e.g. NVIDIA, Microsoft, AWS, Palantir, Midjourney-type models).

So the accurate framing is:
AI may be in a valuation bubble, but the underlying technology is already commercially real and profitable in multiple parts of the stack.

[enroe]

"In conclusion, this study found no negative biases toward AI-generated pop music, with participants rating it more favorably on positive emotional dimensions like happiness, interest, awe, and energizing emotions. These findings suggest that AI-generated pop music may be perceived as a legitimate and emotionally engaging form of artistry, particularly among younger listeners who may be more familiar with and receptive to AI technologies. While limitations such as the potential lack of emotional depth and complexity in the AI-generated music warrant further exploration, the results offer a more nuanced perspective on commonly held assumptions about resistance to AI in creative domains. This may indicate that AI-generated music may be more readily accepted than previously assumed, and that evolving listener attitudes could reshape how creativity is understood in the digital age.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 212500101X

The study is indeed accurate (from the Department of Psychology
at the University of Singapore). Listeners will be unable to
distinguish AI-generated music from the music composed and
produced by humans up to now.

Why not?

Because, naturally, the AI ​​is trained on the best and most popular
songs. The AI ​​then creates songs of its own that sound very
similar — songs that, in a blind test, cannot be distinguished from
human-made songs.

AI-generated songs are created without the passion, emotions,
statements, messages, or effort inherent in human songs. In this
respect, they essentially possess no value, no connection to
people, and no expression!

But we cannot hear this! Because we humans cannot distinguish
the AI-songs from those created by humans.

It is often claimed — as a form of self-reassurance—that
AI-generated songs are less complex, simplistic, and easily
identifiable. However, this is not the case. Many people
underestimate the capabilities of AI — particularly the AI ​​versions
that are set to emerge in the coming years. AIs are neural
networks that "learn" in a manner similar to humans — only
10,000 times faster than any human being.

That's precisely why AI – without drastic regulation – will
completely take over the market for creative arts and music.
Evaluation, devaluation, etc. – none of that matters, because AI-
generated content will be indistinguishable from human creations.
The only difference is that AI can create such content 10,000
times faster in response to a text prompt.

[BertKoor]

> NVIDIA alone is making absurd amounts of money from AI demand.

They are selling spades at goldrush fools.

[Tiles]

Yeah, but they get rich by that.

[BertKoor]

For as long as the bubble grows...

[bermudagold]

i'm not with the juvenile trend driven by social media and the right wing to demonize and denigrate academia and intelligentsia and wrap everything in conspiracy theories...the internet has made people devalue REAL SMEs and REAL subject matter expertise...of course everything and everybody has an agenda...that's why you take in ALL the data, cross correlate it, sift it, and sort it...so that as much objective truth as possible falls out...when you remove all confidence and respect for institutions, there is no central reference point to wrap societal cohesion around and civilization will fall into chaos and fail...dunning & krueger plus Tom Nichols is in effect...they didn't make the world stupid by accident,...they made the world overconfident on purpose

[whyterabbyt]

i'm not with the juvenile trend [to] wrap everything in conspiracy theories..

they didn't make the world stupid by accident,...they made the world overconfident on purpose

[ghettosynth]

"In conclusion, this study found no negative biases toward AI-generated pop music, with participants rating it more favorably on positive emotional dimensions like happiness, interest, awe, and energizing emotions. These findings suggest that AI-generated pop music may be perceived as a legitimate and emotionally engaging form of artistry, particularly among younger listeners who may be more familiar with and receptive to AI technologies. While limitations such as the potential lack of emotional depth and complexity in the AI-generated music warrant further exploration, the results offer a more nuanced perspective on commonly held assumptions about resistance to AI in creative domains. This may indicate that AI-generated music may be more readily accepted than previously assumed, and that evolving listener attitudes could reshape how creativity is understood in the digital age.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 212500101X

Study paid for by a government who is investing heavily in AI. Follow the money.

My b.s. detector is really good, and the amount of b.s. promoting A.I is really pegging the needle. Don't help it.

yeah multiple previous studies have found majority f listeners cant tell...but their feelings/opinions change once told...but to think we would have reached a point already where a critical mass has achieved blanket acceptance without bias, would be surprising...and kinda sad

LOL! Dat gol-dingy-dangy gubernment best not be tryin to tell you learned fellas about no gubernment nonsense!

[BBFG#]

Not sure if I really set any value on any current pop music. AI or otherwise.
And a lot of ambient, techno, EDM music feels AI generated any way.
Just searching for the next something new and different and AI can't do that.
I have several folders of music I've made that I refuse to let out already. Last thing I need is an assistant/collaborater that keeps me in some comfort zone of societal norms.

[enroe]

i'm not with the juvenile trend driven by social media and the right wing to demonize and denigrate academia and intelligentsia and wrap everything in conspiracy theories ... the internet has made people devalue REAL SMEs and REAL subject matter expertise ... of course everything and everybody has an agenda ... that's why you take in ALL the data, cross correlate it, sift it, and sort it ... so that as much objective truth as possible falls out...when you remove all confidence and respect for institutions, there is no central reference point to wrap societal cohesion around and civilization will fall into chaos and fail ... dunning & krueger plus Tom Nichols is in effect ... they didn't make the world stupid by accident, ... they made the world overconfident on purpose

Oh — what an insight!

In the nineties and the noughties, we still believed that the
internet would bring more communication, more participation
for everyone, and more democracy.

Now, however, we must acknowledge that this is not the case
— and that the negative effects of the internet likely outweigh
the positive ones: fake news, conspiracy theories, and
authoritarian views spread far more dramatically than facts
and rational arguments.

And this is where AI proves most welcome, for it serves to
further amplify this dominance — and all its effects.

However, such ranting and indignation are actually quite
pointless. For what do we hope to achieve by it?

No, one would actually have to make suggestions as to how
everything could be saved. How, in other words, we could
escape hell. Where are the suggestions?