I realize this would still allow fakes to be presented by governments in all likelihood, but not everyone.

what gives you that impression?

Google is spends millions of dollars researching and implementing SynthID [0]; ensuring all videos generated have a watermark to ensure they can be detected. As well as using SynthID to detect AI-generated videos, which is what I am guessing they are using @ YT to detect and label the AI videos.

I am far from a Google or AI fanboy, closer to an admiring hater, but I just don't see how they are making AI generated video impossible to detect if they are going out of the way to ensure SynthID /AI watermarks are present in any video generated on the platform.

unless you mean impossible to detect by human eyes; but if that's the case, so is everyone else. except everyone else is NOT spending resources on research for watermarking and keep the detection algorithms ahead of the curve.

/s

I dumped my subscription because of it. If I have to use an ad-blocker to make the site useable, and the ad-blocker already blocks the ads which was the reason I subscribed in the first place...no point in paying anymore. Fuck 'em.

“Don’t believe what you just saw — That’s just AI propaganda!”

I know my story is just an anecdote but it really makes me question if this is even true. I search for things that I want to learn about on YouTube, often about wildlife or the environment, and get served a TON of AI slop. My feed is now full of it. It's extremely frustrating and has actually led to me using YouTube in this way a lot less over the last few months. I have been hoping that I'd be able to filter by this one day.

Or you know, preference. Nice steady predictable AI slop delivered at mono qualities can be very comfy. It's like sleep tube, people reading wiki or random articles, comment threads but with varying energy to time pass. It's good enough, better than most human creator content.

Stuff like random recorded conference talks with 3 views. A super enthusiast in Latvia.

It does recommend crap sometimes but on balance I like it.

I'm now experimenting with hiding thumbnails too, and honestly I've been liking it a lot. It's a very curious feeling how my eyes can no longer latch on to something visually appealing, and instead try to look for information in channel names.

I find them to be flatly insulting to the original content. I'd rather hear the creators original voice and read machine translated subtitles.

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

And you know that how?

And, how do you know news itself is not 100% ai? News corps may simply fail to disclose that it was ai, be taken in, remove watermarks, etc.

The fact is no one can say what one sees on a screen is a true representation of reality. People are acting on a consensus feeling.

I've drastically cut my use of YouTube (even though there are creators I like and wish to support) because I am so tired of wading through all the junk.

The image of a throbbing, mutating, dark spiral is conjured in my mind. The more it is watched, the more it begins to grow into a twisted visage of the viewer as it attempts to recreate all of their desires and fears within itself. It is meaningless yet becomes all meaning.

Screen time for kids (and adults for that matter!) should be way way scaled back. That falls on the parents.

Bad parents give their kids phones and tablets and that's a hill I will die on.

No longer seen recently, not sure it's because YT's crackdown or me repeteadly clicking "not recommend me this channel" (there're a handful)

What's needed is a global "Hide AI Dreck". Particularly the overwhelming hoard of AI slide-shows masquerading as reviews.

https://channelsurfer.tv

they're already locked down as-is.

If you think you can't quit youtube, I used to think that way, and then i did it by deleting my account and using libredirect for invidious. my usage went to just a few minutes or 0 per day.

An emphatic no. What we need to do is to stop comparing every hobby performance, whether it's music or dancing, with the top 10 artists in their field. We need people to learn, and try, and feel safe to be visible and thus vulnerable in group situations without fear of being mocked on social media for eternity. To achieve this, we need to stop filming people, and we need a societal norm that treats a violation of this ban on par with spitting someone in the face. We need to celebrate amateurs that simply try to improve their raw, honest skills.

What we don't need to do is to give everybody a Fisher Price toy with a "make it sound awesome" button. We need human connections.

So the PR risk here is I think reasonably low.

You don't have to say I wont be a rockstar, therefore let me use some AI to make a song, and in doing so give up on the joys of touching and making sounds with an instrument, a very old human thing we've been doing all over the world, having someone show you a song, or look up a youtube video and learning it from some random stranger.

Even better, being in love with a song and finally being able to play it yourself!

Maybe AI could've sufficed for Paul McCartney's interest in music, and provided a creative outlet. But we wouldn't have had something as great and as human as the legacy of the Beatles.

You seem to be dismissing any music that you don't have some pretty close participation in. Did it all start to go downhill with the invention of the gramaphone? Listening to Ella Fitzgerald or Vera Lynn or Elvis or Frank Sinatra was irrelevant for those that weren't actively jamming along with them?

I'm being facetious, I know you don't really mean that. My point is, listening (on your own, with no musical skill) to good quality music made by a real human is a valid activity. That's under threat, and the fact that making your own music with your friends isn't (or at least is less so) shouldn't detract from that.

Your argument is like "people have been killing each other for centuries so when you think about it hydrogen bombs are not the problem"

This is one of the worst parts of any concert, performance -- having a sea of phones in front of you recording. In a dark theatre, it is impossible to watch the actual performance when you have a screen on super-bright in front of you recording it. Also, some people literally record on ipads!

All these are reasons i've not opted to do "concert in my living room" via YouTube and a big screen tv. Not the same, but a lot less silliness around me.

When I'm on a beach stroll listening to Infected in my headphones I can imagine many people at the beach would be dancing with me if they shared my reality. It's just that reality became much more fragmented. It has some drawbacks but I like to see the good parts in it.

A hundred years ago, in order to feel that spiritual feeling of listening to such music, you had to be in proximity to the artists, which was really limiting. I'm grateful that I don't have to be physically near Infected Mushroom to feel the way their music makes me feel. It feels like time travel. Instead of moving yourself in time, you move the sound waves, summon them from alternate universes, right into your ears. This process is as magical as the whole experience.

I imagine it'll apply to anything with a SynthID watermark. https://deepmind.google/models/synthid/

I don't think its bad to use AI assistance but what people clearly hate is just copy and paste.

Also its possible to generate extremely natural and casual sounding replies and comments now and you've probably interacted with several AI bots on HN already.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNImbw1TABo

It's not just from AI either. Video creation used to require a fancy camera and a above average internet connection. Now the whole world has that so we're seeing a lot of low quality profit seeking content on any platform where there is money to be made. There was a GitHub repo with 100s of low quality PRs because people thought it would boost their job prospects.

As for false positive, the most straightforward path seems to be to let stuff slide unless you are really sure. Maybe that slightly rewards players like Kling because they keep the invisible watermarks for their own use, and that of the CCP,but not third parties. NBD.

It's not like catching everything is that important. YouTube isn't claiming this is perfect. And I don't know that anyone need this to be perfect. It's not like even the best photorealistic video creation tools don't have plenty of tells anyway.

This doesn't seem like ZeroGPT at all. Having a flag or not having flag on a YouTube short is low stakes. Its not like it's being sold as a solution for something high stakes like academic grading.

I think closer to truth is: Participation became production.

More people are doing more things (including with instruments) but often times in a digital setting, sometimes more isolated and sometimes much more public (think: Twitch streams where chat is part of the whole social experience in a way that was never true for TV or other live events of that scale). More participatory online and more individualized as consumption, while some older forms of face-to-face amateur participation have become less socially normal or less visible.

This says not so much about music or culture really; it seems fairly aligned with where our lives and how we connect have moved more broadly.

Require? Your barely expected to do anything to upload a video to YouTube and I’m pretty sure any AI disclosures are hidden in an optional accordion dialog.

I just think there is a world of difference between "certainty" and "plausibility" when it comes to videos on the internet. Yes, state actors might circumvent it, and skepticism should remain, but there is a world of difference between North Korea trying to convince me of some political scandal, and Pepsi Co trying to convince me that someone I trust loves Pepsi.

If we viewed art as some sort of competition or race, then someone using neural–network-based generative tools could avoid losing the race; however, everybody would be participating in some sport A and the person using ML participates in a completely different sport B. Everyone is running, but one person is riding a scooter.

However, art is not a finite zero-sum game[0]. Despite what formal music education for kids sometimes tries to make it look like, it’s not a competition, there is no global ranking and scoring system for your skill. Many people have an intuitive understanding of that; try going to a live jam to see people participating regardless of their hypothetical skill level.

[0] As further reading on this topic more generally, I recommend Finite and Infinite Games by James Carse.

I’ve been playing guitar since I was very young. I have good skills, I can play hard songs, and I compose a lot on guitar, drums, and bass. I love the process of creating, but I’ve always hated using complicated applications just to get a clean recording or mess around with adding MIDI tracks.

Because of that, I recently tried a famous AI solution. I shared one of my really raw songs and used the AI to add violins and other instruments that I don't know how to play. The final song was, to be completely honest, really amazing.

But in the end, I didn’t feel like it was mine. I had this strong feeling of being an impostor. At the same time, it put me in this great energy, it opened up my head, made me really creative, and gave me a ton of new ideas of things to play on my guitar.

So like you said, there is this weird balance. As a musician, it feels strange to outsource the creation, but as a tool for energy and participation, it completely unlocked my creativity.

Every online video platform should let you label specific segments as AI generated, even better if it is a requirement with validation checks for certain kinds of content.

- AI generated VFX on top of non-AI video

- AI upscaling of low res footage

- AI frame interpolation for synthetic slow-mo

- Modified / composited AI video

- Footage created by "Extend Scene" features in Premiere Pro and others

- Word correction from tools like Descript

- AI relighting or colorization

- Reaction video to a video containing AI-generated content

And in general, what amount of combination of any of these applications constitutes as "AI generated"? If I have a 30 minute video with a 3 second AI generated clip, do I get the same label as full-blown AI slop video?

Most of pop music had driven any creative energy it ever had to the ground already in the 90’s and 00’s and listening music from past 10-15 years or so, even if it’s not AI -generated, it might as well be. In a way AI just brings this progression into its logical conclusion. Most people simply don’t care about art and music, and it doesn’t matter who or what made it and if it even sounds like… anything.

People do not want to communicate across oceans, cultures, and centuries the lived experience of what it is to be human, hear stories what it was, say, live as a 28-year-old (possibly gay) composer with syphilis in early 19th century vienna, or standing on the street corner slinging crack in 80’s Brooklyn. They want to stay in their own bubble bed sherts over their heads smelling their own farts. I guess that’s just fine. Just fine. Amazing.

People praising it in the comments seem none the wiser (or perhaps they're also bots).

I admit to leaving praise on some of them, because they do sound really good, much better than what I thought AI music could be. Someone is creating music I like, and how they do it doesn't really matter; and in some ways, this makes it much easier to "separate the art from the artist".

So not everything like that is necessarily AI generated!

I use YouTube proper quite heavily and I find it pretty easy to spot the AI stuff. At a minimum there’s usually a comment pointing it out, just like Instagram videos

Here is a band member of the real band "Wings of Pegasus" who takes a closer look at these shenanigans in "Are you sure your favourite band is real?" [1]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/@ShunnedataFuneral

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKOtpdDzwyA

Or.. they simply like it? Regardless of what we think about it

This is better than nothing, but it's not going to provide immunity against AI fakes trending and having impact before they're identified as AI.

We don't need the metaphysical solution to the problem of detecting AI videos for the rest of time. Certainly, it's fairly easy to make something that mostly works most of the time. Enough to be very, very useful.

In my experience, a decent proportion of people have always been nervous about joining in. I'd wager that for many of the onlookers it isn't driven by a creativity/participation thing, it's just a (pretty normal) fear of embarrassing themselves. Scroll back 30 years and I would undoubtedly be one of those awkward teenagers wanting to join in but scared to do so out of fear of embarrassing myself.

That said...There probably is a reasonable argument to be made that in the modern world the potential for everything you do to be filmed and shared with others amplifies those fear more than ever.

Cryptographically verifiable provenance and chain of custody is going to be necessary to get to the human only stuff, before long, but the good AI stuff will be better. Just a matter of time, at this point.

As a German, I couldn't think of a more appropriate usage of the word "Dreck".

Eg, I can say: "ai wrote this comment".

Or I can say: "ai did not write this comment".

Looking at the comments alone does not tell you whether they were or were not written by ai. Same for videos.

What is going on is that you are trusting the disclosure is significant and real. So, when you see the disclosure you are concluding something on the basis of TRUST. Same for the video itself.

Seeing something on a screen does not make it a true representation of reality. You do not know reality; you only know that you saw a video. This applies to disclosure, video, comments - anything on a screen.

A 30 minute speech by a president where I use AI to change 3 seconds in order to make that person say something they never did should also get the label. The label shouldn't be about how much AI was used, but that it was used at all.

I'd say this is far more problematic than plain slop.

Are you real? - If you can't tell, does it matter?

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaahx4hMxmw

To be honest, as long as the music is to my liking, I don’t really care all that much.

I'm not affiliated with it, nor am I against AI-generated music. Just a huge fan who admires the hard work people pour into making the scene work.

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.

Lots of artists! They are not even remotely hard to find. They are literally a google search away. Typing stuff into Suno because you can't be bothered to search "new artists that sound 90s" is crazy

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.

This is the distilled essence of a “first world problem.”

Or whether it’s only a small subset who do.

namely: "social" media

I recently was recommended a video about one of the political frictions between the US and Canada, it was posted in January 2026 but after about 30 seconds I realized that it was very obviously talking as though it was January 2025; it was a year behind, and therefore spreading effectively misinformation about the current state of negotiations, policies, politics, etc.

The problem, as I see it, is that in a lot of cases these channels aren't just "using AI to produce their content", but using AI to mass-produce content with zero effort on their part - meaning zero attempt to make sure what they're saying is accurate. While I do mean that from the "not deliberately spreading misinformation" perspective, I also mean it from the "knowing what year it is" perspective as well.

That said, I was also recommended a channel that was very confusing; the voiceover was obviously AI, but the video content itself wasn't. Since it's usually the other way around, if anything, I went to look at their channel and they had an "intro to my channel" video that was a man behind the camera, speaking strongly accented English, talking about his office setup - laptop, desktop, etc. - that he uses for making his videos. It became obvious that he was using AI scripts and voiceovers to produce the content he wanted to produce, but without his accent or lack of strong English fluency being a detriment.

It was the first time I've ever seen someone using AI-generated content in a way that I couldn't obviously say that not using AI would have had a better result.

This particular subset of GenAI is very very bad.

My feed is all channels I'm subscribed to or content from other creators that make similar content. I don't get Mr Beast or any other the other crap that people complain about.

Music does have certain notions of correctness (e.g., [0]) but with a very forgiving "know the rules, then break the rules" aspect. Code has bugs or it doesn't, and it's probably easier to debug human-written code (certainly easier to grok every line of a human-written PR, IMHO).

The real problem is with the domains that aren't at the far ends of this spectrum.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterpoint#Species_counterpo...

As someone who doesn't use youtube, this seems conceptually wacky.

i.e. Why aren't those video simply RSS podcasts? Yeah, incentives, but if the video doesn't matter, they'd be a better product as a podcast.

Compared with, say, Netflix, where even though I've been rating everything I watch on there for 5+ yrs, the recommendations still barely feel personalized (if anything, it feels like it personalizes which premade "top list" to show me, but not the titles within them...but it does personalize the cover art/thumbnail, lol).

I'm not aware of any secure digital signature schemes that don't require the thing they signed to be bit-for-bit identical to pass verification. There are perceptual hashing algorithms that could theoretically be used to build such a scheme, but such hashes are not second preimage resistant, so someone could create a modified video that still passes signature verification.

You'd also need close to 100% adoption for this to be effective, otherwise people will just assume the fakes were recorded with one of the cameras that doesn't have that feature, or that they didn't bother to upload the raw footage anywhere.

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.

If the video is entertainig I doubt people will mind it's AI. Let's wait and see.

Why? Not trying to argue against AI labeling, but if you are enjoying the music, why does it matter?

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.

Since Google does nothing that isn't based on metrics, we can deduce that they have data to show that giving people settings to focus the recommendations on what they want reduces total watch time. We'll only get an AI filter if it turns out that AI slop offends people so much that they disengage with YouTube altogether, which outside of HN and similar bubbles, I don't yet see happening.

If people don’t want to watch AI content, they should be able to avoid it. Just as a vegan should be able to know if a dish is appropriate for them. Besides: if you have to blatantly deceive people into watching your videos when they otherwise would choose not to, what are you even doing? And yes I understand people already do that. But we should not go out of our way to enable that. Plus the moment you are perceived as not disclosing that, you risk getting burned by someone online and facing much harsher, longer term consequences. Reputation still matters to a degree.

Ultimately I’m not sure we should be advocating for opacity in consumer products.

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.

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.

But to me this seems silly. Yes I want real artists to make music and be able to make a living not some faceless company spitting out endless music until something works. However at the end of the day if something sounds good then one should enjoy it not refuse to accept it simply because it is AI.

Because how far does their stance against AI go? They won't accept music. What about if AI created a cure that could save their child? Or what if AI could could sort through a massive backlog of evidence in unsolved murders and other violent crimes giving new leads previously missed? I am just curious if some people will simply be against it no matter what the use is. As for myself I think it has it's uses but also think it comes at a heavy price as in massive power and water consumption and other issues it comes with. Anyways

What's the difference with AI doing it instead of your script ?

From Case Hate Red:

> With some minutes to kill, he checks the headlines on his phone. Yet again, something dreadful and new which he doesn't understand is going viral. Today's fad is, you paint a black vertical rectangle on the wall, or on a mirror, or over the top of a picture. And then you chant something. Wheeler can't quite pick out the words of the chant. They're in a language he's not familiar with. He's no singer, but he's performed pieces with lyrics in Latin, German, Greek, French… whereas this language has a bizarre manufactured sense to it, as if it were simply English with the vowels and consonants all switched around.

[0] https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub

It's easy to say be a better parent, or produce a better environment for your kid, but it's not as easy to help people with that. If we can make social media healthier for everyone, that's a big deal.

The parent post's worry is warranted, IMO.

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

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.

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 :)

While theoretically access to everyone has been democratized when compared to music labels of the past since everyone can put their music on Spotify and social media, effectively that also means social media is now a required skill besides musicianship.

It's harder than ever to create your own thing and stay on track. I think this is why so many people are going bonkers with angine de poitrine for example.

A sincere thank you for this metaphor.

Agreed. Filming strangers in public is making everyone scared to have fun trying anything new, as they’re afraid of online mockery…

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.

If nothing else, it feels like a the subscription price should be less for an AI-music service.

---

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 feel like one of the less discussed issues of the hyper-connected world is there are no small ponds to be the big fish in anymore. Used to be you could be the best in your school, church, town even city etc - even if you weren't that good. I remember being astounded as a kid by a woman who juggled 5 tennis balls in a local talent show. Now I can hop on youtube and watch people do way more impressive feats it doesn't seem so unique. I suspect that 5 ball routine might still be the greatest juggling I've seen in person, but it still doesn't compare to random acts I've seen online.

But especially with the para-social relationships of social media people feel connected even to big names now. You might not compare the local young singer to Taylor Swift, but people will to the tiktok singer they 'know' who liked their reply once.

It's gratifying and inspiring to be top of your class in something, but in a world where it's always a class of millions, you know you'll never reach the top.

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

If I see a performance from Lang Lang, I don't just perceive the sound, it is the expression of memory, discipline and attention. Learning an instrument is more than attaining the skill of producing the correct notes in the correct order. It shapes attention, perspective, patience, discipline, sensitivity and so much more. You can't replace that with effortless simulation. I mean you could, but it's practically meaningless.

In the old days e.g. concerts were for enjoying the music together with people you did and didn't know. The best concerts were those where you were left sweaty from (slam)dancing with everyone in the pit on music that was even better-performed than on CD. Showing the experience afterwards was not really a thing that existed.

As live music enjoyer and person that was commonly around safe spaces in the techno scene I cant agree more. Fuck filming people.

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

Well, theoretically you could build a service providing blocklists, and users could subscribe to such blocklists with a browser extension blocking accounts. Basically Sponsorblock or Blocktogether for Twitter, with individual users flagging accounts for slopaganda, content theft, rage / engagement bait and other issues.

Unfortunately, it's way, way too likely that you'll run into some sort of bot detection on Youtube's side and I've seen more than enough horror stories about people getting fucked over and getting their entire Google account perma-banned with no way of recovery.

Yes, you can. Click the video's 3-dot menu > Don't recommend channel. Though I have noticed that this only blocks them from showing up in the feed, not in the recommendations sidebar. I also have to run uBlock to hide shorts, already-watched videos, subscriber-only stuff...ain't saying the YT experience is good, not by any stretch of the imagination.

It's a really valuable feature that I expect will eventually be the gold standard, it was surprising how helpful it was. I think a lot of creators will embrace it, it adds credibility/authenticity. You aren't just labeling the AI content, you are labeling the content that isn't generated by AI, with a validation layer to back it up.

Like this, made by a guy who clearly understands who to use ai?

https://youtu.be/6YTjH_7QUT0?t=42

Ai is a great enabler for people who have ideas but don’t have chops.

You can find a ton of this on archive.org [0]. One of my favorites is from K-Mart background vinyl. AI can't quite do this yet.

[0] https://archive.org/search?query=subject%3A%22Kmart%22&and%5...

There are several channels with pure ai Wh40k music. Some Star Wars creators are doing similar stuff.

I’m actively resisting desire to dump bunch of YouTube links, but if you want to hear what many people already vetted great, I’m happy to share.

  > Because how far does their stance against AI go? They won't accept music. What about if AI created a cure that could save their child?

If AI cured cancer then by definition it would no longer be the technology that’s primary use case is churning out various forms of derivative slop. And so the balance between its value vs the economic/social/environmental costs would immediately and fundamentally change.

Losing my job, spending 3x as much to replace my PC while my favorite websites devolve into a cesspool of spam might not feel worth it just because I can now vibe code a todo app in 2 minutes while listening to a 600 hour playlist of personalized elevator music.

But if it cured my dad’s cancer and my mom’s Parkinson’s? Well, that’s a different story…

A: sorry i’d love to deeply consider this topic with you but unfortunately i’m part of the fuck off ai music movement so i won’t?

https://fuckoffaimusic.com/

I'm sure many content creators' videos will be labelled as AI generated. For good reason.

Things are not perfectly fine how things are now. AI slop is destroying the internet. Tons of grifters are earning tons of money off YouTube by brainwashing millions of people with AI slop, including my mom. YouTube needs to do something and this seems feasible and far better than doing nothing.

I also think the false positive rate is going to be far lower than you think - especially if YouTube sets a caution threshold.

I'm open to other solutions but if you propose we just keep what we have now, then you are proposing an absolute disaster.

I feel like this trope is strongest amongst musicians-feeling-underappreciated, but that the idea seeps in to all manners of creative work: that, because you’re rightfully proud of what you do, the audience is wronging you (or “lazy,” or “sad,” or “cheap,” or “tasteless”) by not appreciating it. It doesn’t make me feel a lot of sympathy.

similarly, firing up a music gen system rather than listening to a billy joel song for the 30,000th time seems less lazy.

say what you want about AI systems, people that I used to see idly sit at a screen and ingest things all day purely are creating things they like now and sharing them. The thing is easier but the engagement seems greater for a lot of people. It's not as black and white as "oh you're lazy." -- and, by the way , that seems so wildly inappropriate to label an unknown third party as site-unseen -- dare I say that seems lazy?

It's normal to hate AI being pushed down our throats, but it's a completely different thing when we call people names, who enjoy it on their own.

There's not much AI music I like either, but there's at least one genre where it's really, really hard to find anything both new and authentically human, so AI scratches the itch occasionally.

Actually it seems to me like what the friend was doing required a lot more effort than "searching for new music". This isn't the 80s where you have to get in with the "in crowd" to listen to bootlegs or limited prints. You're talking about going through search results at a computer, right? She's actually involving herself in the music creation process, in some small way.

Also, re: music, if I was fine with listening to AI music, why would I listen to the output of someone else's prompt instead of creating my own?

What a perfect illustration that while you typed on a keyboard you're so far away from making art.

PS: how many pieces of art that moved you were made by artists you knew or met?

Things I would do before committing time to a random channel on a topic I’m interested in:

  - Search my trusted communities and channels for alternative recommendations on that topic
  - Ask (create a post) for recommendations on a topic in my trusted communities
  - Request my preferred content creators create content on that topic
  - Search for sentiment regarding the new channel (accuracy, trustworthiness)

That suggests you've done a good job of directing the AI to generate what people like.

There’s an appetite for this.

You just described me 40 odd years ago :))

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

Consuming all that content leaves you feeling small and isolated. The talents you thought you had are nothing in the face of a global pool of YT/TikTok/Insta superstars.

Currently, I share things with people I care about and who care about me. The rest of the world can remain ignorant of me and I of it. It's a good place to be.

In other words, users dislike the feeling of not knowing whether things are ads. I can't see any real downside to labeling them, so you're better off doing it so you don't drive users away.

But consider an album I found a couple of years ago, called "The Unfinished Violin". A UK folk musician, Sam Sweeney, bought a violin he thought sounded really good, noticed a name in it. Researched who he was. Turns out he was a music hall performer from Leeds. He had made the parts for the violin, but before he could assemble it, he was sent to fight in WW1 and died in Flanders. The violin had laid unfinished in an envelope for the better part of a century. Sweeney arranged a lot of time-appropriate, military related music for the album, and wrote a few himself too.

I didn't know any of this when I first heard "The highland soldier" on Spotify DW. I just thought, wow, that was a beautiful tune. And it sounded like it meant something to someone. And it, turned out, it did. It meant something to Sweeney, it meant something to the folk music collector George Butterworth who wrote it down (and then also died in WW1), it meant something to the people he recorded it from.

If I heard a Suno tune, it's entirely possible I'd also think, wow, that's a beautiful tune. But there's almost no human connection. Nobody cared about that music. It's not entirely devoid of humanity, because of course Suno was trained on the music of people who cared and had something to express, and there's an echo of it. But the link is severed. It has no human provenance.

You can cut yourself off from humanity, just use audio as a drug and not care where it comes from. Certainly a lot of people did that long before AI. But why, when there's so much human music to connect with?

There might be a specialised line of cameras for forensics that signs the output and has lidar to detect when the camera is pointed at a screen, but the average person won’t have a camera with this kind of crypto. It would just be too easy for hackers to extract the keys from.

It seems like the Google method here is identifying their synthid markings on content. Which won't cause false positives but only catches content from tools that actively adds this mark.

Nobody generating anything on Suno is showing any kind of creativity. It's somehow worse then regular plagiarism.

In other words, you need to be in control of your own narrative, or someone else will do it for you to fill the void. For example, someone can use cold reading to deduce what others suspect and fear and then paint you in that specific light, essentially planting individually targeted nasty rumours about you while increasing their rapport with others. That kind of rumours tend to spread.

Eventually you become the outcast in your social circles and you will be hard pressed to regain control of ”you” in the eyes of others.

What's even more ridiculous is that this wasn't a small race - it was filmed, and broadcast live. Their many, many camera angles and drone shots and everything else are superb, much better than your phone would be. It's on YouTube live and available years later. Why do this? It made me so sad.

If your answer to any of these questions is "yes", and your answer to "can AI create art" is no, then there is a difference between AI doing it and a script.

That said the discussion around "human" art and "AI" art often lacks nuance, and I believe there's lots of space to explore art that uses AI. Humans produce a lot of crappy art, this crappy art requires humans to invest time and effort. With AI it is possible for humans to produce lots of crappy art without investing time and effort, so an deluge of crappy AI art follows.

If I use AI to strip backgrounds instead of traditional greenscreen methods, is the end result "crappy AI art"? I'd hope no one sets those standards. I'd hope my videos would be judged as "crappy human art" since I still did the camera work the acting and the editing. If I use AI for visual effects in my video because I don't have visual effect training and don't have money to hire someone with experience (I don't make money from my occasional fun video projects), does that make it "crappy AI art"? I don't believe so. But somewhere between there and the content farm AI slop filling the Youtube servers there is a point where it becomes "crappy AI art" and I can't tell you where that point is because I'm still trying to figure it out.

If somebody told me "I choose to only read AI-generated books" I would also silently judge them.

Like what? People say this kind of stuff all the time and it's either not true or they're generating things with very questionable taste.

Some people yearn for the slop.

If you need it to be explained to you why it's a tragedy that a person's curiosity can atrophy (or fail to develop) to the extent that she can't seek meaning in what she engages with every day for enjoyment, then you might not have met the minimum requirements for this conversation.

It's just I don't go and explore songs actively. If my playlist suddenly randomize itself (which YouTube Music usually do even when I already selected a specific playlist), I usually just keep it randomizing the songs, I either skip the songs based on the intro or just the title.

Sometimes, I only write the lyrics without any melodies, or just give a base chords for the AI to work with without any melodies, and AI might surprise me on how it suddenly chose a certain melodies or chord progression.

So you can say I'm exploring, but only within the boundaries of the lyrics that I wrote. Or when YouTube Music randomly plays a song for me and I immediately resonates with it.

Because you might not be as good as someone else in doing it, just like it was before AI. "Why would I listen to the output of someone else's piano instead of playing it on my own?"

Maybe I should be generating generic AI made videos. LOL.

Now, all the video services have feedback loops where they can determine what keeps people glued and provide more of that. Some "programs" like cocomelon have dialled that up to 11.

The only defence is the terrible parental controls and/or taking devices away. That almost always results in "fights".

I think a correlating answer can be found in visual effects for movies. And the answer "depends". When it's poorly done, the scene feels off or unbelievable somehow. But when done well, people have an enjoyable experience.

This same conversation existed when moving from practical effects to digital. and in the end, audiences only cared about quality.

It's really not hard to understand what the problem is with AI generated history vids.

Email spam filtering can clearly cause reputational harm too.

I was moved by a lot of songs made by artists I never met. But I was moved because of the song, not because of the reason why the artist wrote it. If I can truly understand the emotional state of the artist when they wrote it, I might be able to empathize with them. But that's me empathizing with the person that made the art as a human. Nothing stopping me from doing that as a human, even when their song didn't move me.

I publish my songs under a pseudonyms. They can infer what am I as a person based on the songs that I wrote. They can infer what emotions and feelings that I am experiencing while I write the songs. But it's all inference, unless they know me behind the pseudonyms, they won't be able to relate with me personally, as my real self, not as the songwriter. And I am okay with that.

People like what they like, sure. And if someone was particularly into the idea of machines making music, or even take some cynical enjoyment out of this on the full understanding of what it is they are doing. Sure, whatever.

But someone acting like listening to AI generated music is their only choice due to their taste in music? Come on, that's a sci-fi nightmare right there. Not even going full-on ecologist here, but the resource expenditure alone is so out of whack for something only a single person will listen to.

I don't even consider myself a musician, just a human being baffled at the total lack of humanity and how that lack of humanity is being normalized. Talk about sympathy.

Of course, that doesn't mean I don't want to listen to new music by other people, or create more of my own. I'm simply sharing what it is to experience songs written by yourself. I saw Sting the other day talking about the very same thing to Rick Beato regarding songs he wrote 40 years ago, and I remember Brett Anderson of Suede saying that he loved listening to his own music. In fact, wouldn't it be weird if you didn't want to?

I feel sympathy for people who made something that was reappropriated by those without strong ethics.

Why would you assume I'm NOT subscribed to those channels? And why would you assume I am incapable or haven't asked for recommendations.

My friend. You are a grade A jerk. Get freaking bent.

Only if it actually works

Drugs are out of control. Homeless are everywhere. No one has interests in anything. No one is having kids. All jobs are going to be gone soon. Colleges can't teach (it's all AI cheating now). People are Gang Robbing stores. Cartels are killing hundreds daily. Fraud is out of control. We have 2 maybe 3 world wars going on simultaneously now. Prices are skyrocketing.

Yeah I get why you say "pretty much". lol PS good luck buying a house

But yes, there are very confirmists circles and some will outcast you for not doing what everyone does - your choice for trying to still belong there or find a better group.

But if you really do what you want and you do it with confidence, you might find the conformists are suddenly coming back and think you are cool.

I guess either way we will see. Art is only appreciated by those who appreciate it so who am I to judge.

Glad I left social media (if you don't count HN). It'll be almost a decade soon since I deleted all my accounts.

Hope there will be research.

I guess people are addicted to new notifications. They are lonely and drawn to human interactions and attention through social media because they are incapable of getting it through real life.

I'm not sure how using AI to generate songs will save anyone from the burnout of searching for songs, but what I understood from context is "intellectual laziness" and I see that as an insult. I'm not a native speaker though, so thanks for offering another perspective.

The song that I wrote has more values because it carries memories, emotions, and my internal state. I'm not saying other songs doesn't have values. It's just harder to resonate with, unless the melodies or lyrics align with my emotional state.

I listen to my own songs because I am songwriter, and still am even when I stopped doing it professionally. I am not doing it for the sake of "I just want to listen to my own songs and I will never listen to others". I listen just because "This song is meaningful for me"

And the "this song" in that quote above, can be mine, or other's.

  - Clearly amateurish production, which should be met with skepticism until proven otherwise
  - Clearly professional production, with good reputation (e.g. long-running with few controversies), meaning it’s probably trustworthy
  - Clearly professional, with poor reputation (e.g. propaganda funding), meaning one should be skeptical while consuming

Not that it still isn't depressing.

My daughter's English professor is now requiring people to hand write their essays during class. So at least there is that.

Romance readers got tired of being judged for decades and decades by people who dont read at all, people who read pure power fantasies or what not.

With AI, even if you enjoy it as bad, as soon as you know it’s AI it loses all interest because there’s zero story behind it. The answer to all those questions becomes “a statistical algorithm made it that way”, and that’s objectively a boring answer.

People have made music before, and I hardly believe they only made It for other people, but als themselves.

The "intellectual laziness" you describe can be seen as a way to not spend attention and effort on things, you don't care for, in other words being rational and mindful.

Not that I agree with this, there is tons of good music from the past centuries, which I already can't all hear in my lifetime, that I don't need to start consuming never ending output from greedy, soulless and evil corporations. I also don't like modern music that much.

> I'm not a native speaker though

Me neither.

I love me some Deleuze and Hegel, but my life is full of "interesting" bits already. Sometimes you need something simple. Your example is wrong as well: he did not create his own music, he directed it and yes I would definitely love to read a book about some weird sci-fi ideas I have written in some style I love but myself cannot reproduce.

Which in this case, my need is to recall the memories and emotions when I write the song?

So on the one hand making your own photos and movies at events is less authentic than just experiencing it, and yet at the same time more authentic than relying on professionals to film it for you.

“Slop” is specifically about AI content lacking in effort, quality, meaning. You may not like Zimmer, but saying it lacks in those areas seems a tad too much. “Formulaic” isn’t an indicator of slop either, most stories are formulaic following a variation of the hero’s journey. It’s especially not problematic when you’re someone like Zimmer who invents or popularises the formula.

wouldn't be surprised if it's because they don't have to pay out for AI music.

It's not like human-generated content is made of carbon and AI-generated content is made of silicon and the science of chemistry can unambiguously tell them apart. If you asked a million humans and a million LLMs to write a sentence on a specific subject, it's not implausible that one of the LLMs and one of the humans would output the exact same sentence. Maybe more than one.

A thing that can take only the output and accurately tell you if it was AI-generated or not is therefore impossible, because if it said no it would be wrong when the LLM generates that sentence, but if it said yes it would be wrong when a human generates the exact same sentence.

All it can do is try to calculate a probability. But then what do you want to do with that? Suppose the probability it estimates for some content is 45%, and that probability estimate is an accurate measure of the true probability, i.e. can't be improved when the only information you have is the content itself. Do you want to ban the 55% of that content which is human-generated, or allow the 45% which is AI-generated?

It could work "well enough" for YouTube to consider it a success while still harming a fairly large number of content creators.

I have found when looking a photos from 20 years ago, I skip most of the shots of only landscapes, buildings, etc. The only interesting shots are shots with the people that I travelled with in them. They bring back all the fond memories, the things we did together, etc.

So I now, when making pictures of sceneries try to do it as much with my fellow travelers in them.

As you say, others can make better pictures of the scenery.

I clearly see talented author who just didn’t had chops or resources previously to realize his vision, and now he can and I can enjoy it.

At the same time I probably feel and define slop slightly differently, for myself.

In my birth city there was a street that was closed every weekend for art sellings. You walk about 1km (or less), and there are tables with sculpitures, paintings, crafts etc. In the beginning it’s fun, but after some time (and especially after several visits) you see how repetitive and formulaic it is. Somebody chooses kittens and draws 100s of things with them, somebody chooses nature etc etc etc. I didn’t even know the word slop then, but looking back - it was it.

After watching Bob Ross (and I love the guy) it’s clear that many “creators” were producing slop that is technically similar to what Bob Ross was teaching. Did Bob Ross produced slop? No. Do people who just reuse same approach over and over again (here is how we will paint the tree by using this then than brush) produce slop? In my book - yes. And it’s fine, if they or somebody else enjoy it. I don’t judge them and I don’t judge people who use and enjoy ai.

For me art’s purpose is to invoke some emotion in person, experiencing the art. The way how art is produced is secondary.

You can have buckethead who does music, and you can have someone (even highly technical, with great timing, control, mechanical chops) who “produces song” while sitting on a toilet and an “instrumental album” in a day, by running pentatonic scale all over again. And this is the slop for me. And it has nothing to do with ai.

Also formulaic art isn't necessarily bad, because human appreciation does follow some patterns.

Nothing with with a few photos. However make sure you are making memories not just getting photos of someone else.

I still take pictures of monuments, or the sky, or the landscape nowadays with my phone, at least trying from some unusual or less common perspective, but I do take a lot of pictures of my family as well, especially in day to day moments. And print them, from time to time, in physical albums. It's just so different.

There could be lazy, uninspired but technically competent as ai art (my pet peeve is many “instrumental guitar albums” that are just pentatonic scale and standard licks in all shapes and forms) and ai art can be good.

I will say even more. I’m sure that soon we will get new albums from old stars (like let’s say) that will be great. Critics will be in ave “triumphant return to old form” and everybody will avoid looking in the eyes and say the truth about how they were able to write new good songs, given that they weren’t able to do it in like decades.

I get the idea: get 10k each samples of human data and AI data, train a simple classifier until it gets 99.9999% accuracy or <10k false negatives per day at your scale, ship it as a screening tool.

Is such tool feasible at all with current state of AI technology, or is it just a reasonable take from the past that may not be so reasonable anymore?

Same, we went to the US a lot when I was a teenager. I have many good/fun memories of all the places we visited together, people we met, etc. A few years ago I went through some of the photos that my parents still have with about the same ratio of pictures with us in it. Random desert shots are even more frequent than people shots :).

In fairness, you did say “even worse”. That’s not an expression one tends to use unless calling something bad. I can’t imagine someone saying “this is the best album ever, and even worse this is the second best”.

> There could be lazy, uninspired but technically competent as ai art

There’s no technique involved to typing words in a box. Even the people who used to wax lyrically about “prompt engineering” have mostly subsided. AI pictures (not necessarily “art”, I don’t think that term should apply to any random image, even from humans) created with prompting can look technically competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be technically competent.

> and ai art can be good.

What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.

> I’m sure that soon we will get new albums from old stars (like let’s say) that will be great.

Again, what is “great” here? Does it mean you like it? Then sure, can’t argue there. Personally I believe “greatness” has to stand the test of time at least for a few decades, so we may never know for sure. I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why would an old star be interested in generating a simulacrum of their old music without doing it themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that is.

"If a creator doesn’t specify whether or not they used AI, but our systems detect significant photorealistic AI use, we will now automatically apply a label."

The issue is, that's not a thing. AI-generated content and human-generated content have significant overlap. No amount of training data can allow you to distinguish them with that level of accuracy because many outputs exist that could have been generated by either one. Additional training data allows you to say that the probability is 55.0374% plus or minus 0.0001, rather than only being able to say that it's 55% plus or minus 5%. It can tell you with greater precision exactly how ambiguous it is. What it can't do is remove the ambiguity.

For “even worse” - I meant different, and I think your analogy is unfair.

One can say something like “this is not your best job. It is solid product of a carpenter. Even worse, I know you could do much better, like a woodworker”. And nothing here says that the job is _bad_.

But again, my native language is not English and the way I say things may surely sound unnatural.

——

How going back to your argument. You already subtly move goalposts and give humans mich more benefit of the doubt and leeway than you give to ai.

> There’s no technique involved to typing words in a box.

There sure is. And that’s what separates results. Most of the things that I enjoy are clearly have good deal of thought in inventing lyrics (again, I watch lore channels and the way the lyrics are made is clear that there is a good amount of thought, prompt and maybe even manual tinkering), in doing montage of videos. I’m skeptical about prompt engineering but your criticism here is as same as painters criticizing photographers: “they just press the button”.

> created with prompting can look technically competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be technically competent.

I used to thing along this line too, but later I realized that this is not an argument in any favor. Look at like any professional reviewing let’s say old movies. Thousands of errors - costumes of wrong epoch, or made wrong way, or worn wrong way. Wrong guns, wrong ammo etc etc etc. I saw some pro criticising ai generated picture of a woman on a horse, and it was about same - the things used to steer the horse are like upside down, some other things don’t make sense. And then it clicked to me - it doesn’t matter. It isn’t unique to ai. Humans did same stuff forever. As long as result is enjoyable, it’s fine.

> and ai art can be good. What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.

This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my position with liking gore etc. On first albums of Metallica you almost can hear how they are learning and getting better (except drummer). Yes, if it’s pleasing enough people and bringing joy to their life then it’s ok. It doesn’t matter is it ai or human. Again, there are many cases in music when apparently the solos weren’t played by artists but by uncredited session musicians. Is it slop? Musician acted as tool here.

> Again, what is “great” here? Does it mean you like it?

Fans like it. Not only me. It brings new fans or even casuals may enjoy it

> Personally I believe “greatness” has to stand the test of time at least for a few decades, so we may never know for sure.

You do you. It’s fine.

> I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why would an old star be interested in generating a simulacrum of their old music without doing it themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that is.

Why Metallica does new albums? They already have enough super hits, that stood test of time even By your definition (decades) to not care. Why other bands do the same?

—-

In very short. To me it feels that there is an attempt to steer into public conscience that

    Ai = slop

    Human Slop = Ai slop = slop

Thank you for clarifying.

> One can say something like “this is not your best job. It is solid product of a carpenter. Even worse, I know you could do much better, like a woodworker”. And nothing here says that the job is _bad_.

Except no, that doesn't make sense. It is not clear at all to say “This is not your best job. It is a solid job. Even worse…”. That is very confusing communication. “Even worse” means “something was bad but then it got even badder”. “Even better” is the opposite: “something was good and became even gooder”. Using “even worse” to mean “this part was good but this other part was bad” is incorrect. The word “worse” already requires things to be bad. It is an adjective adding to the situation, never contradicting it.

See the definition of the word: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worse

See how all of them are “more <bad>”, “<bad> to a greater degree”? Worse always means something was already bad.

> How going back to your argument. You already subtly move goalposts.

I don’t think I have. But because you only made the accusation without explaining your reasoning, you’re not giving me any fair chance to clarify any position. Considering we’ve already established, by your own admission, that English is not your strong suit (not a criticism), doesn’t it seem more likely to you that you’ve misunderstood my point? Or perhaps that you should consider that a possibility? As per the HN guidelines, assume good faith. I assumed good faith in your argument and responded respectfully and clearly (to the best of my ability) to it. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I started updating my comment above as soon as I saw that I posted reply (the one that your answer addresses). Hope that clarifies my position and gives you an explanation where I disagree with your comment.

> Look at like any professional reviewing let’s say old movies. Thousands of errors

Mistakes are not the same thing as slop. It’s not at all related. Here’s the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop

> This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my position with liking gore etc.

I like gore. I find Cronenberg and old Japanese movies and anime aesthetically pleasing. I have done work based on gore. Not only am I not making a straw man or arguing in bad faith, I’m not insulting or discrediting you in the slightest. Please stop making assumptions and responding to those assumptions in your head. I didn’t use gore as an example to discredit you, I used it because it’s an example of a niche art that I understand and respect. It‘s the exact opposite of what you took from it.

> Why Metallica does new albums?

Metallica is not making new albums with AI, are they? That has nothing to do with your original point of an artist coming back to make a new album after decades using AI. How can you, in good faith, accuse someone else of shifting the goalposts while engaging in such a textbook example yourself?