I really want Spotify to follow. I feel cheated and deceived when I'm enjoying some music, then I realize that there's no bio for the artist and they released 7 albums in 2025. Users should be empowered to filter out AI content if they choose.

> I feel cheated and deceived

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

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

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

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

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

Why would it not make sense to change your opinion on something based on its origin? Supporting local artists and small businesses is commonplace. How is this not just another extension of that?

we are talking about music here that you couldn't tell is AI generated or not, not manufactured goods

People care a lot about the story and the human artists behind their music, probably somewhat more than the music itself. When I discover some great metal songs, I'll look up their info, the band, the artists, their bio, everything related to the creation process and their history.

Normal people doesnt do that, thats just you and a couple others in this thread. Normal people just listens to music and enjoys it without a second thought

For art, I would rather support humans over AI

> Why?

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

If people really thought it didn't matter, they would just label their AI-generated stuff as "AI" and let consumers choose. To do otherwise is to scam.

I care about rewarding real musicians, actual human beings, with my attention and, even love. AI slop gets in the way. Even "good" AI copies and appropriates from real artists, their style, their voice and even their history and relationship with their audience. Agree with me or not, there should be a global filter that allows me, the user of the service, to filter out AI generated content.

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spotify has every incentive to cut out the middleman (the musician). This will never happen.

I heard rumours they're the ones quietly funding some of the AI music. Spotify probably see the most popular musicians flying around in jets and want to redirect all that listening to their own slop.

A while back, I discovered by accident that forcing ChatGPT to respond only in zalgotext and then using voice mode generated some really bizarre audio.

Have uploaded the audio files for anyone who's interested. They've since patched the ability to ask for output in zalgotext, but it was pretty strange while it lasted.

My car drives itself. That's a $18T global market.

Also $1T in data center investment makes sense when you realize that companies are racing to create virtual white collar workers. Google spends $9B a year on software engineers.

> Google spends $9B a year on software engineers.

Well they are projected to spend $175 - $185B on capex in this year alone most of it for AI buildout. Lets say only 150B of that is for AI. If they can then somehow replace all their software engineers with AI that they then run for free and depreciate over 10 years then they just replaced 9B a year software expense with 15B a year depreciation expense for the next decade. Yes this is grossly oversimplified but it still illustrates how crazy high of a bet they're making on AI.

That's assuming they only use it to replace their software engineers and make no money selling AI usage or using it for anything else.

> depreciate over 10 years

I believe the One Big Beautiful Bill Act allows full depreciation in the first year: https://www.bassets.net/blog/obbba-depreciation-2025-2026-gu...

That's a bookkeeping issue, it doesn't affect the argument at all (which is that the capex has a finite useful life over which it would need to pay for itself).

Yeah, just tangentially pointing out that asset depreciation rules in the U.S. changed recently. Could explain some of the crazy magnitude of this year's spending spree.

> My car drives itself. That's a $18T global market.

That's not a new market, that's a new feature in an existing market. Lots going on in transportation and I'm not seeing any scenario where self-driving cars vastly increase total output vs just eat up other forms of transportation and change where people live/how long they commute.

> Also $1T in data center investment makes sense when you realize that companies are racing to create virtual white collar workers. Google spends $9B a year on software engineers.

Similarly, many companies are trying to be more efficient - "do what we already do, but better". That's different than growth.

What could Google do with 9B on software agents? Let's say the future of them is amazing and this means they could write 100x more code than they can today.

Has Google recently showed much ability to turn "more/faster code" into "superbly profitable new market"?

Someone's gonna have to crack the demand side issue for anything transformative to happen.

Market for who? Who is left working? If we can’t answer that question then we’re not prepared for what’s next.

THIS is the question!

Henry Ford II: "Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues?" Walter Reuther: "Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?"

Ah, the elephant in the room. Nobody seems able to answer this point, or even talk about it. Occam’s razor sure doesn’t imply a good outcome.

For so long, people, especially politicians, have said that companies want to create jobs. But I think most companies want to create profit.

And for so long, I've had people tell me to just get a job. But I tell them that I don't want a job: I want money and I want something to do. Those two things don't have to be together.

I think this is the hard part: philosophically so many of us have learned we need jobs and don't realize a job can be decomposed into money and something to do.

So I think we need to start looking more creatively at 1) how people receive money from others and 2) how people give services to others.

Well the essence of capitalism might be that people who own the capital receive money for owning it, not doing any labor on it necessarily.

So when we talk of people doing labor for money, we are assuming they can only own their body and receive money from that?

owning capital comes with risk...

you may not like the fact the fat capital owner may not be lifting a finger, but they certaintly aren't getting a free lunch.

5,283 workers were killed on the job in the United States in 2023.

The only thing capital owners risk is losing it and becoming a worker.

Fair, I never said there wasn't risk involved with ownership. I even made sure to qualify when I said that people who own don't do labor, because often there is labor involved in ownership.

So I don't think it's a free lunch, it's more risk-for-lunch than labor-for-lunch. Maybe you could argue laborers are still risking their body or something, but I think the point might stand.

The economic model is inconsequential to my point. Latching on to that as a boogeyman is a distraction, the point stands on its own.

> Nobody cares, either you bring something to the table someone else can exploit for money, or you lean into “I’m helpless and the government owes it to me to take care of me because I’ve been indoctrinated into learned helplessness.”

You paint the economic model as a false dichotomy, and the main point of my posting was that it is not a false dichotomy. It is not either have a job (and be exploited by someone else) or be helpless and rely on government handouts.

For example, what if people who got laid off from companies were given significant stock in the company, so that they might partake in the potential savings and gains from replacing the workers with AI or other tools?

The whole conversation seemed to be about the economic model, so I'm not sure how it is a distraction, a boogeyman, or inconsequential.

> For example, what if people who got laid off from companies were given significant stock in the company, so that they might partake in the potential savings and gains from replacing the workers with AI or other tools?

You have described less than 0.1% of the US population, not to mention the rest of the world.

I get it, you have an idea in your head and you're struggling to see past it. Read Brave New World.

It seems that you may not want to actually have a discussion, rather just reinforce the idea that we're either screwed by employers or screwed by helplessness.

Fair, my one example on layoffs may not land with you.

But do you want us to just sink into the helplessness of us all being screwed or do you want to try to find solutions that might allow us to feel some sense of agency and hope?

Dissmissive, thats a way to handle it for sure. I'd be much more interested in you adressing what I said. Dismmissing is lazy.

You wrote 7 paragraphs originally. What specifically do you want me to address?

Ah, well, nobody needs to buy them if the robots just provision everything for the people who would have otherwise had their businesses make cars.

Driving a car is a chore, not a job (usually), much like washing dishes is. Dishwashers did not produce an economic collapse.

OTOH replacing people with AI would indeed bring about a huge economic downturn. What would be good is augmenting humans so that they can do 10x more. That would enable things that are hard to imagine exactly now, much like computers enabled interesting transformations in the society from 1980s to 2010s.

The current crop of AI is by construction unable to reach the human level of cognition, but it is quite good at doing some symbolic manipulation tasks. We will get used to that, and will integrate that in our workflows. Humans are still going to be needed.

Tractor-trailer trucking alone is the 13th largest profession in the US. It’s not unusual for driving to be a whole profession in and of itself.

Fair, but I spoke about cars, the commute / chore kind of work, not trucks, a commercial job.

And do you feel that the industry in general, and individual companies are currently trying to augment / 10x their workers and have everyone share in the 10x profits that will bring? Or are they jumping on opportunity to try and cut costs by even single digits, by replacing those workers with AI and it's not their problem what those people do from there?

If an employee brings in more profit than before, you want more such employees, not less.

You have to cut costs when the costs do not bring you enough profits.

That assumes the market is infinitely expandable.

If in fact you can meet the same market demand with fewer workers and the market does not expand accordingly, you get deflation and job losses.

Huh?

Hundreds of billions are changing hands globally, every week, at the retail level alone.

And that happens literally every week, week after week.

That constitutes a massive market in any sense I can think of.

That won't happen any more if nobody has jobs. It's also completely irrelevant because how did you just connect the self driving car market to the entirety of retail sales?

So you think a trend that is growing year after year, yes global retail sales grew from 2025 to 2026 week over week, indicates a future collapse?

That needs a way more complex explanation than simple gut feeling.

> My car drives itself. That's a $18T global market

Which will take decades to become addressable. Self-driving cars work OK in a few cities in one country. Expanding that to be able to cover Mumbai and Omsk and Nairobi will require significantly more work.

> Also $1T in data center investment makes sense when you realize that companies are racing to create virtual white collar workers.

Does it make sense? How much would the resulting virtual white collar worker cost? Because datacenters have running operational costs, and so do the people operating them and working on the software that runs in them.

> My car drives itself.

No. It doesn’t. And if you’re defining “drives” as “it drives as well as I do” then you probably shouldn’t be on the road.

> makes sense

Nothing about any of this makes sense. Tell me, when all white collar jobs are replaced by AI, where will the customers come from? Who will have income to afford your products or services? The poor barista whose surveillance videos are training the robot that will soon replace them?

Leaving aside any consideration of human compassion or questioning of the purpose of an economic system (hint: it’s not just an abstract machine), shrinking the pool of potential customers by orders of magnitude has never been a recipe for sustainable success (let alone growth).

Exactly. It's a tangent, but clearly a pain point for enough users.

100%. I have to hold the floor by filling the space with "ummmmmmmm.... uhhhh...." which inevitably distracts me from my point altogether. Poor user experience.

Seems like there's a big risk of having that habit leak into human conversation. A lot of people try really hard to train themselves not to add those fillers.

Strongly agree, some of us like to choose our words more carefully when interacting with an LLM.

I've tried to convey this to OpenAI through various available channels (dev forums, app feedback, etc.).

Grok solves this by having an optional push-to-talk mode, but this is not hands-free and thus more cumbersome than just having a user-configurable variable like seconds_delay_before_sending_voice_input.

I agree with your categories. The majority of the usage for me is (1) and (3).

(1) LLMs are basically Stack Overflow on steroids. No need to go look up examples or read the documentation in most cases, spit out a mostly working starting point.

(3) Learning. Ramping up on an unfamiliar project by asking Antigravity questions is really useful.

I do think it makes devs faster, in that it takes less time to do these two things. But you're running into the 80% of the job that does not involve writing code, especially at a larger company.

In theory, this should allow a company to do more with fewer devs, but in reality it just means that these two activities become easier, and the 80% is still the bottleneck.

> LLMs are basically Stack Overflow on steroids

That, and I've never had to beg an LLM for an answer, or waste 5 minutes of my life typing up a paragraph to pre-empt the XY Problem Problem. Also never had it close my question as a duplicate of an unrelated question.

The accuracy tends to be somewhat lower than SO, but IMO this is a fair tradeoff to avoid having to potentially fight for an answer.

Tangential, but you used to be able to use custom instructions for ChatGPT to respond only in zalgotext and it would have insane results in voice mode. Each voice was a different kind of insane. I was able to get some voices to curse or spit out Mint Mobile commercials.

Then they changed the architecture so voice mode bypasses custom instructions entirely, which was really unfortunate. I had to unsubscribe, because walking and talking was the killer feature and now it's like you're speaking to a Gen Z influencer or something.

If you're a coder then it sounds like you could use the API to get around that and once again utilize your custom prompt with their tech.

I do it sometimes (even just through the openai playground on platform.openai.com) because the experience is incredible, but it's expensive. One hour of chatting costs around 20-30$.

I think the subscriptions tend to be a significant discount over paying for tokens yourself

Did you record this? Sounds deranged enough to be amusing.

...voice mode bypasses custom instructions? But why? Without a custom prompt it's both unreliable and obnoxious.