I've been reading about Spotify pushing generated music but haven't seen that myself so I'm interested to know in what context it happens. Is it certain music styles? Spotify's own playlists? That smart shuffle feature?
I listen mostly in the old school way, full albums of my favourite artists, so I suppose it would be quite unexpected to stumble into AI music this way.
I believe if you go down the rabbit hole of "mood playlists" and spotify created playlists, then you'll get a lot of tracks that they don't need to pay royalties for and that could probably include AI generated music.
If you are explictitly looking for music by specific artists, then you get their music obviously.
Is there a good way to know if what you are listening to is AI? I listen to a lot of outrun and synthwave type stuff and it isn’t as easy as googling the artist’s name, a lot of it is made by artists that don’t tour and are quite small etc.
> then you'll get a lot of tracks that they don't need to pay royalties for
I love this conspiracy theory. Which track doesn't Spotify pay royalties for? Considering that it licenses 100% of its music from external distributors.
> The program, according to Pelly’s reporting in Harper’s Magazine, is designed to embed low-cost, royalty-free tracks into Spotify’s most popular mood- and activity-based playlists. Produced by a network of “ghost artists” operating under pseudonyms, the tracks are commissioned with the intent to reduce the company’s royalty payouts to artists, per Pelly.
> operating under pseudonyms, the tracks are commissioned with the intent to reduce the company’s royalty payouts to artists, per Pelly.
As I already wrote elsewhere, no one, including the article's own authors, understood a single thing from the article.
Spotify doesn't produce its own music. It licenses 100% of its music from external distributors. Apart from a few scammy companies there are dozens of companies whose entire repertoire and catalog is ambient/background/noise/elevator/shopping mall music etc. that they commission from ghost composers.
Epidemic’s selling point is that the music is royalty-free for its own subscribers, but it does collect royalties from streaming services; these it splits with artists fifty-fifty.
--- end quote ---
Wait, what about "no royalties" crap? Oh, all of that is just "per Pelly". Though I'll admit that there are probably companies that license music for a flat fee (though I assume those would be rare).
Also note: Spotify doesn't pay artists. Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists. Spotify pays distributors and rights holders. And then those, in turn, pay royalties based on their contracts with artists. (According to one of the ghost artists interviewed, he is paid significantly more than he would be if he was trying to release music himself, BTW).
Erm... things are a bit more complicated than you make them out to be and I'm afraid you do not really know a lot about how all of this works (me neither, btw, this is all very, very messy). It is correct that Spotify pays artists through distributors (and they partly own one, Distrokid, but that's another story) or labels. But there are usually also royalties that need to be paid for songwriting, lyrics and performance, which can (and often do) go to different people. This is extremely complicated and different from country to country, but completely separate from the distributor. The artist/lyricist/performer will receive these royalties (if they registered for it) from entirely different institutions. This is the prime advantage of "royalty-free" music - you need to pay only the artist (or their representation like distributor/label), either flat or per stream/performance/whatever... So in summary: yes, Spotify most definitely saves a ton of money with steering people towards this kind of stuff. I also wouldn't be surprised at all if they actually just pay flat fees for that junk.
Create Music Group, they buy your favorite artists catalogs and then use the money to underpay artists to churn out slop songs that Create Music Group then owns and distribute/licenses Yay! :)
Again. Spotify doesn't pay musicians directly. Spotify pays distirbutors and rights holders.
Literally in the very article everyone links to but is incapable of reading there's even this text:
--- start quote ---
Epidemic’s selling point is that the music is royalty-free for its own subscribers, but it does collect royalties from streaming services; these it splits with artists fifty-fifty.
The major labels own a good chunk of Spotify directly. Used to be even more. As long as they get their cut they'll jump on any opportunity to screw over their artists (yes I know "unsourced statement" blah blah, sit down lawyers. I won't explain the reasons for my low opinion of these companies right now.)
The allegation is that Spotify pays out to entities which are ultimately owned by themselves, or that they get kickbacks in other ways like ad purchases (probably illegal, but hard to prove if you're at all clever about it).
I remember I found a track a few years ago, by the artist Mayhem. No, not the metal band. The background music artist Mayhem. Which only ever released two tracks. One of which, "Solitude Hymns", happened to get featured in one of Spotify's playlists, and managed to rack up more plays than any track by the more famous metal band at the time.
> As long as they get their cut they'll jump on any opportunity to screw over their artists (yes I know "unsourced statement" blah blah,
It's not really unsourced. It's just very rarely talked about. I think you may get an article once every 10 years questioning the actual rights holders and distributors.
I mean, you get people in these discussions on HN that don't even know that Spotify (and other streaming services) don't even have direct contracts with artists and everything is going through intermediaries.
> I remember I found a track a few years ago, by the artist Mayhem. No, not the metal band. The background music artist Mayhem. Which only ever released two tracks. One of which, "Solitude Hymns", happened to get featured in one of Spotify's playlists, and managed to rack up more plays than any track by the more famous metal band at the time.
Thank you! You're the only one who could point out a weird track.
41K monthly listeners for the band. The track got 20 million plays because it was featured.
That's where the gray zone begins: was this band with two songs picked because it is cheaper to include (for whatever reason) or was it just lucky (like some other bands that got big through streaming like Glass Animals).
When this was in the music industry news a few years ago, a lot more tracks were mentioned, I don't remember if this one was one of the ones they listed or one I found myself. I did find many myself though, at the time it wasn't hard at all. I just remember this one because it was memorable, their name being the same as a far more Wikipedia-notable band.
What is hard though, is finding out which aggregator/intermediary/record company collected the payments for mayfly Mayhem's plays. I have not succeeded at that, if you find a way to get that information out of Spotify, do tell me. It's probably actually easier to find out who made the music. MBW managed to find out that at least some of these tracks were made by well-connected Swedish producers, as I recall.
The barbers I went to recently were playing a channel on the TV which was an endless series of clips panning through ultra-nostalgic French Riviera-style scenery, accompanied by mellow guitar music. Seemed fine at first glance but like all AI stuff it got weirder the closer you looked - boats on land, outdoor dining areas underwater, giant lanterns larger than houses, mangled looking food, that sort of thing.
Someone had clearly just set up a few prompts and let the AI get on with it, creating probably hundreds of channels of this stuff.
But unless these tracks are treated differently in Spotify's payout system, they're extremely profitable, and because payments come from a common pool, they hoover up payments which would otherwise have gone to artists people actually like.
You're being unnecesarily pedantic. They might not hire the musicians directly but if they're hiring an agency to do that, it's effetively the same thing. Ultimately they're trying to get generic music for cheap to reduce royalty payments to artists.
> Ultimately they're trying to get generic music for cheap to reduce royalty payments to artists.
1. Spotify doesn't pay artists. Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists. Spotify pays rights holder and distributors.
I really wish people who have strong opinions on music industry learned at least the absolute bare minimum about the subject.
2. Again, bringing back to my original comment: where's the evidence for that? E.g. the one and only article everyone links [1] and doesn't bother to understand literally has statements like this:
--- start quote ---
But at the end of the day, [the ghost musician] said, it was still a paycheck: “I did it because I needed a job real bad and the money was better than any money I could make from even successful indie labels, many of which I worked with,” he told me.
...
Epidemic’s selling point is that the music is royalty-free for its own subscribers, but it does collect royalties from streaming services; these it splits with artists fifty-fifty.
--- end quote ---
That doesn't mesh well with the narrative of "Spotify bad, doesn't pay royalties, etc.", does it?
> 1. Spotify doesn't pay artists. Spotify doesn't have direct contracts with artists. Spotify pays rights holder and distributors.
You are still being unnecessarily pedantic. Most of us understand that there are layers to this, but ultimately, what we care about is how much an artist is paid per stream and what streams are being preferred over others.
There are artists that Spotify has different deals with. Spotify promotes their music in their playlists, but the artists get a much smaller cut of the profits in exchange. Win-win for everybody.
This only happens in genres where most listeners don't care about the artists they're listening to, think "chillout", "focus" or "easy listening." That kind of music is a commodity, Taylor Swift (or Metallica or Mozzart or whatever) is not. This has been proven.
My hypothesis is that those genres would otherwise lose Spotify the most money, as people often play that kind of music and never turn it off. Because Spotify pays per listen, the user who attentively listens to their favorite artist a few times a week is much better for them than somebody who has "chillout" playing on their echo 24/7.
I'm not saying they are doing it now, but what's stopping them from generating their own tracks? What's to stop them from creating some bullshit company to generate AI slop and then licensing music from themselves at fractions of what they'd pay a real artist just to keep up the illusion so that real artists don't leave their platform?
If a corporation can do something that will make them more money than they'd make not doing it you should expect them to do the profitable thing. Corporations don't care about ethics or even the law. Maximizing shareholder value is their purpose. They exist only to take from the many and give to the few. It's not a conspiracy theory to assume that they'll be doing exactly what they are designed to do.
It's not really a conspiracy theory. YouTube users can use royalty-free music, it stands to reason Spotify would have the same (potentially internally) to decrease costs.
"Why pay royalties if it's just going to be BGM for a massage parlor?" could be their reasoning.
I only go to massage parlors that display their ASCAP or BMI license in the window. I wouldn't be happy getting an ending if some musician is being ripped off.
Yet another person who plays the bogeyman card of "conspiracy theory" when what is described is garden variety corruption, only takes a trivial amount of secret coordination in a group smaller than your average terrorist cell, and could probably even be defended as legal with a small legal team (Spotify probably has a big one).
There are a billion ways you could cash in on this. A dead easy one is "music written for hire by a company you own".
Even if Spotify is not doing the slightest thing like this, suggesting that they might is not a conspiracy theory. Quit trying to tar every proposed view of the world you disagree with with that label. You're just making it easier for the actual grand conspiracy theorists.
> Yet another person who plays the bogeyman card of "conspiracy theory"
> Even if Spotify is not doing the slightest thing like this, suggesting that they might is...
...textbook definition of conspiracy theory
Also note how your entire text is just unsubstantiated claims. Including emotionally charged words like "terrorist cell" that give your words so much weight and meaning.
Your "textbook definition" is BS. A theory that someone conspires is not enough to call something a conspiracy theory.
You would not call a prosecutor who accuses someone of "criminal conspiracy" a conspiracy theorist, even though they have a theory that someone is conspiring.
A terrorist cell is just another example of a real type of group which obviously conspires. You're not a conspiracy theorist for believing they exist.
Conspiracy theorists is something we call people who believe in a grand conspiracy, one which, had it been real, would have required superhuman levels of coordination and secrecy. That's the brush you for some mysterious reason want to tar critics of Spotify with.
And for the second time this week, someone demands "evidence" for expressions of distrust.
> And for the second time this week, someone demands "evidence" for expressions of distrust.
Funny then that to illustrate your point you use this example: "You would not call a prosecutor who accuses someone of 'criminal conspiracy' a conspiracy theorist". You know what separates criminal prosecutors from conspiracy theorists? They have to provide evidence.
Or this example: "A terrorist cell is just another example of a real type of group which obviously conspires. You're not a conspiracy theorist for believing they exist." Yes, because we have evidence that they exist.
See how this works? A theory with no supporting evidence is a crackpot theory.
For example, I can say anything I want about you. When asked about evidence, I can lapse into demagoguery about terrorist cells or something. Perhaps you are a part of a terrorist cell? Otherwise, why bring them into discussion?
To repeat the salient part, lawyer guy: Conspiracy theorists is something we call people who believe in a grand conspiracy, one which, had it been real, would have required superhuman levels of coordination and secrecy. That's the brush you for some mysterious reason want to tar critics of Spotify with.
And sure, if you insist I'll refrain from speculating why you're so obsessed with defending a megacorporation and insisting they deserve the benefit of doubt. Feel free to provide evidence to explain. (Remember, by your own standard, your own opinions aren't evidence).
> if you insist I'll refrain from speculating why you're so obsessed with defending a megacorporation and insisting they deserve the benefit of doubt
I'm pointing out unsubstantiated claims, often to people who don't know jack shit about music industry (e.g. that's why almost every comment in this thread has a variation of "Spotify doesn't pay artists, Spotify pays rights holders")
Note how you still haven't said anything of substance except emotions and ad hominems. But sure, your position is correct and valid, and not mine.
After an album ends Spotify keeps playing some related music. It's expected to include some tracks that are new to you. Then suddenly you notice "artists" you've never heard of with empty descriptions and "albums" from 2025 only.
I’m the same as you, I search for artists I like and then listen to albums, saving them in my library. I never see any AI generated music or podcasts because I just listen to music.
I have more than enough music made by humans to listen to for the rest of my life without ever turning to algorithmic recommendations.
This. Lazy/mindless consumption without any discernment has been leading to various rabbit holes for quite a while. Ever saw youtube content which algorithm brings toddlers to if left alone with a device?
That's exactly how it's supposed to work: Arch expects you to check the notes on their news section always before you update. The NVIDIA driver issue and solution was posted on Dec 20th.
I'm not saying I'm reading these regularly, just that yes it's the expected way.
So it wouldn't be incorrect to refer to Arch and Arch based distros as 'well, if you want to have fun with a broken system, otherwise avoid', just so it could be mentioned in a succinct way when talking about what distros one could try.
No, I don't think that's a fair way to put it. People regularly report having quite old Arch installs without stability issues. And people also regularly advice Linux newcomers not to pick Arch.
If you check their news section, it's a reasonable number of notes, 13 for last year. I think it's fair to say it seems to work well if you are willing to follow their procedure and already know what you're doing.
I feel there's also a fundamental difference in tinkering to get something working vs. tinkering to remove user-hostile features. In the first one the goals of the OS and user are aligned, in the second one not.
It's the same for me. I understand that people do want to use them without plugging in, but I would imagine at least most developers prefer external screens, right?
For me the battery is good enough when it can last two back-to-back meetings without me getting worried, so about 2.5 hours. Otherwise it stays plugged to USB-C.
The monitor is both powered and the video comes from one USB cord. My MacBook Pro can run 5-6 hours while powering the monitor. I couldn’t do that if the laptop by itself only last 3 hours.
Every now and then I use my iPad as a third monitor.
Australia indeed has great coffee culture, I had no idea before visiting. On my holiday there I never had bad or mediocre coffee, which was a bit wild. Not once.
You can get great coffee in Europe of course, but you'll specifically have to go to a cafe that knows what they're doing, or the likelihood of a mediocre brew is high. Australians, I bet most of you don't realize how good you have it there.
When I was in Queensland I was a bit flabbergasted that every roadside sandwich shoppe, no matter how small or God-forsaken, served excellent coffee. Thankfully the world is healing and American coffee culture is improving. Starbucks has as much difficulty getting a toehold in New Orleans as it did in Brisbane and for the same reasons: there are so many places you can get better coffee, that no one wants to go to Starbucks.
I used to play Aardwolf too, great memories. I think I got to 6x remort before going on hiatus. I'd be tempted to return, except I decided a couple of decades ago that no more games that don't have an end.
My first MUD was Phoenix. At some point they did a big update that forced all players to restart from level 1, and subsequently lost their player base and died. I'm sure I learned something from that debacle.
And as far as I can see, it's a total waste of silicon. Anything running in it will anyway be so underpowered that it doesn't matter. It'd be better to dedicate the transistors to the GPU.
The latest Ryzen mobile CPU line didn't improve performance compared to its predecessor (the integrated GPU is actually worse), and I think the NPU is to blame.
If you ask NVIDIA, inference should always run on the GPU. If you ask anybody else designing chips for consumer devices, they say there's a benefit to having a low-power NPU that's separate from the GPU.
Okay, yeah, and those manufacturers’ opinions are both obvious reflections of market position independent of the merits, what do people who actually run inference say?
(Also, the NPUs usually aren't any more separate from the GPU than tensor cores are separate from an Nvidia GPU, they are integrated with the CPU and iGPU.)
If you're running an LLM there's a benefit in shifting prompt pre-processing to the NPU. More generally, anything that's memory-throughput limited should stay on the GPU, while the NPU can aid compute-limited tasks to at least some extent.
The general problem with NPUs for memory-limited tasks is either that the throughput available to them is too low to begin with, or that they're usually constrained to formats that will require wasteful padding/dequantizing when read (at least for newer models) whereas a GPU just does that in local registers.
Another upside of LIDAR is that it isn't a camera. The robot sees a one-pixel 360 scan, which is quite enough for navigation, but doesn't have the privacy implications that come with an IoT camera device. I would not take a camera equipped vacuum even for free, and I think I'm not the only one.
I have one, and specifically got one without a camera because I don't want that driving around my house. The first time it went through I made sure to stow cables and such, and I do a quick walk-through to make sure that none of the cats have barfed and that there's no obvious obstacles before I release the hypnodrone.
It still saves me time, which was the reason that I bought it in the first place.
Sadly most new models have both camera and lidar. I can see the use of a camera for avoiding things like cables and pet poo, but I don't think it's worth is especially since all the robots are controlled via the cloud
I listen mostly in the old school way, full albums of my favourite artists, so I suppose it would be quite unexpected to stumble into AI music this way.
reply