I'm not sure what source would make more sense here. This person cited a twitter account, but that person didn't ever post it. So this is the source, best I can tell.
This is a person with OpenAI labs, which created it. They cited their coworker who didn't post it themselves.
It amusing that Musk attempted to reverse his purchase of Twitter by citing the number of bots, and then research like this comes out alleging that now 29% of the X's long form articles are fully AI.
It's not exactly the same thing, of course, but still interesting the extent to which this type of content is viewed as the business opportunity for him.
This isn't true. He said "And other than when I was 12 years old I have never cheated in a tournament with prize money." That implies, to me, that when he was 12 he did in fact cheat for prize money.
And then he admitted that he cheated as a 16 year old in "random games" to boost his online rating. I can't find any instance of him providing a number of how many games he admits to cheating in, but the chess.com report alleged over 100, including when he was 17.
I don't agree with the overall point, but what they are saying is that if Tidal makes a "lofi hip hop mix beats" playlist, then they have to pay a nickel to an artist if they direct the user to their song, but NOTHING if they direct to someone who uploaded an AI song. So that's an extra nickel of profit for pointing to the AI song.
In reality, I don't think this is how it'll shake out. But it's a valid argument.
If there's a market, then a competitor app with different policies will likely arise.
The other aspect that's missing from the discussion here is LEGAL. If Tidal is making money from stolen music -- although arguably they still are by offering it on a subscription basis -- then that opens them up to litigation. From that perspective, this may double both as risk-mitigation and also a marketing opportunity for them, would love an attorney to weigh in there.
(From the comments here, Spotify is the market leader and already pays out for AI generated music. But I can't say that independently.)
> Tidal defines AI-generated music as music that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence.
I think this needs more clarity. I can think of a lot of different ways AI is used in music today as a part of the song generation process and not sure whether or not this definition would apply to it. They specifically mention developments in "text-prompted generation" but if anything that confuses the issue more, for example what about training on specific music.
This isn't a comment on how expansive or narrow the definition should be, just that they need to spell it out more to allow for consistent application (to say nothing of enforcement). If someone uses ChatGPT for lyrics, but writes the instrumentals themselves, does this policy apply? I genuinely have no idea.
Great! Since you're taking feature requests, I'll add that it seems like sometimes lots of data comes at once and then everything gets rushed. But then nothing happens for a while. So it has a "hurry up and wait" feel.
I think it'd be worth slowing down when you have receive data for multiple pitches at once, which would also mean it wouldn't feel as slowed down at other times -- even if that means at some points you're further behind the real-time nature of the game.
Could you display live data in a browser tab title? Not just the score, but actually mostly when it's not between innings so I know when to switch back to it.
I also wish it was more zoomed-in on the action, but I get why that's not in v1.
It'd be $8.52 in 2015 dollars, but certainly they are the ones who mentioned the $12 amount not you, so I'll put that aside.
Far more importantly, you would not get billed for 2 minutes of work for this if you paid a developer to fix it. At best, half hour increments for the fix. But more likely, for the full hour. Also, in this comparison, the consultant is on call every day, morning, afternoon, evening, for whatever you wanted and will jump on the job immediately.
This is a person with OpenAI labs, which created it. They cited their coworker who didn't post it themselves.