[fxwin]

> Tidal will accept AI-generated music.

> Tidal will hold AI-generated music to a higher standard of content integrity. We will not tolerate AI-generated music that exploits an individual’s or group’s music, name or likeness, deceives listeners, or diminishes the quality of our service.

I think this is a very reasonable approach, and probably also the best way to treat AI-powered copyright infringement as a whole. Just like we don't penalize artists for consuming content unless they produce actually infringing content, we should set the same focus for AI systems.

> Starting today, AI-generated music will not be monetizable. We are only in the beginning of the era of AI-generated music.

Don't really agree that this follows from the stated principle here ("... ensuring royalties go to original works produced, written and performed by people"), but will definitely help with spam etc.

[VladVladikoff]

The flood of AI music on their platform is becuase people can make money off it. If you turn off that faucet you stop the flooding.

[bko]

I think the flood is also due to people in general finding AI generated music passable.

I may be in the minority but I like AI generated music. Do you ever really like a song in the current moment and want one almost exactly like that? Mostly for background music. I like to listen to synthwave while working and since I may listen for 10-20h a week, I hear the same songs over and over. Maybe I should be more selective or curate my playlist, but it's just work. I would love a stream of AI generated music in a particular style I can work to.

[atrus]

You see that a lot in AI (and honestly, other discussions) where people with differing requirements are talking past each other.

Some people are listening to music as an experience, internalizing lyrics, empathizing with the feeling and vibes of the artist. Others are just wanting something pop-y as background noise while they do work. They come together and since they're arguing for different needs, the whole thing turns into a mess.

[platevoltage]

It's still silly. We have decades and decades of pop music, and really any kind of music you could possibly want. What AI SHOULD be used for is matching these people with some of the music made over the course of human history that they might like, not feeding them pig slop.

[JAlexoid]

We have a lot of pop-slop, now it's AI slop.

There's a reason why a few artists persist through the decades, while others just fade into obscurity.(think of how long Madonna, Cher have been around)

[paul7986]

Totally agree with Tidal (music SPAM needs to go away) and this coming from a huge lover of AI music. So much so, I only listen to my own AI music now and I'm not the only one per this Verge article https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/937059/n...

As a lifelong songwriter, using AI to produce my own melodies and lyrics lets me listen to the diary of my own life, which allows me to reminsce and realize my songs are the best songs ever for JUST me :). I dont subject others to them ... much.

[JAlexoid]

AI generated music is good, the singing (vocals and lyrics) is typically very bad.

AI generated music is also not at all original. Which scares all of the "artists" who lack originality.

[mvdtnz]

> AI generated music is good, the singing (vocals and lyrics) is typically very bad.

This is a musicaly illterate position. You only find the instruments passable because you're not familiar enough with music. You hear vocals and because you have a decent understanding of what a human should sound like you can tell how bad it sounds. Anyone with a musical ear hears the same thing of the horrible AI generated instrumentals.

[JAlexoid]

We're talking about a layman. Not to mention that different genres have different quality of AI music.

I would easily recognize AI generated orchestra, while I can bet a lot of money that AI generated EDM is hard to distinguish from something created in a DAW

[platevoltage]

Just Carpenter Brut and Gunship alone collectively have over 6 hours of music.

[nekooooo]

poolsuite.net

dozens if not hundreds of synthwave channels and internet radio stations. but sure, listen to your ai slop muzak.

[rvnx]

The real reason is not that people can make money off it, it's that actual people are listening to it.

Let them do, if they like to listen, whom are you to say their tastes are bad ?

> 97% of people can’t tell the difference between fully AI-generated and human made music

https://newsroom-deezer.com/2025/11/deezer-ipsos-survey-ai-m...

[wredcoll]

People do listen to it and enjoy it but to some degree it becomes a marketing problem. I don't know how to weight the moral issue of someone missing out on a song they would love and instead getting a one they merely like because the ai stuff is flooding the market, but it would be nice to tip the scales a bit in the other way.

[a_bonobo]

Why would I pay 10 dollars per month for music I can AI-generate myself for free?

[signatoremo]

That's right. Why would you?

Other people seem to be fine with it. Why wouldn't they?

[kombookcha]

Are they paying for the AI music, or for the human music on the platform that is now being thinned out with the AI music?

They're fine with it now, but at what does the bread taste more like sawdust than flour to these same customers? 20%? 40%? Half? 70%?

You can only deteriorate your core product so much before people start going somewhere else.

[bunderbunder]

And the flood really is overwhelming. This weekend my mom was complaining about having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle Unlimited. I mentioned that the relative lack of slop is one of the major reasons I chose Kobo over Kindle. Even before this latest AI boom I was already starting to view less content as a feature, not a bug, because it seems that on subscription services “more” is increasingly just a polite way of saying “more crap.”

Similar feelings about Nebula vs YouTube, although Nebula straight up doesn’t have entire genres, or videos in languages other than English, so it doesn’t really work as a general recommendation.

[AlecSchueler]

I really wanted to like Kobo but the no refunds policy really burned me. I bought a book listed as being in English, with an English title and English on the cover page, but the contents were entirely in French and they wouldn't refund it because of the general no refund policy. I just felt ripped off because what I bought, as advertised, just wasn't what I received.

[greggsy]

That would be illegal in Australia, even if the policy was prominently displayed up front.

Claiming otherwise is to treat each book as a packet of Pokémon trading cards, where you know you’re getting some cards, but you don’t get to choose which ones.

[nerdsniper]

Much, much more difficult to enforce / obtain remedy, but it’s also against the law in the USA as well.

[bunderbunder]

In the USA you could possibly just contact your credit card company and have them issue a chargeback. And then Kobo might just let it go because it costs more to contest it.

[nextaccountic]

> This weekend my mom was complaining about having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle Unlimited.

I don't understand this. Who goes to an online store to decide what to read? Rather than just buy what you wanted to buy.

I would expect that people were going to.. places where people talk about books. Like goodreads, or even some interesting thread on /r/books, or whatever. And then, well, after you decide what to read, you think about how you will obtain it. I think people have their priorities inverted.

And I think like that because the storefront doesn't have your best interest at heart. For them you're just a number on a bottom line.

[motoxpro]

Have you never gone to a bookstore in real life and just browsed? Not everything has to come from recommendation or reviews or research. It can just be pure exploration.

Its the same process online and offline: See an interesting cover/title, read the dust cover, skim a page to get the writing style, buy or dont buy.

Sure, you will get "more bad than good" but not everything needs to be efficient, and in the old days, the bookstore played the role of curator so you could have a great experience spending a few hours in the store. You would come away having discovered a book that isnt the hotest thing on some review site or message board. That's probably the experience she has been replicating, but now the overall quality has gone down.

[giglamesh]

I don't follow this rule strictly, but for most of my adult life I've limited most of my book reading to books > 10 years old. If it still seems remotely relevant and worth reading ten years later, it is far less likely to be a waste of my time. Now sure I'm a bit less prepared for water cooler conversations, but overall the policy has served me well.

> having trouble finding anything actually good to read on Kindle

because of AI slop is new benefit of sticking to older texts that I hadn't anticipated.

[thewebguyd]

> reading to books > 10 years old

I've found myself applying this rule, sometimes unintentionally, to almost all media I consume. It's now a very rare occasion that there's something new that I want to read, watch, or listen to. It just isn't that good, tbh. My music library is full of music from ~2018 and older, most books I enjoy are even older than that, and I can't remember the last time a movie came out that I was dying to see since about 2016-ish.

It's not like I'm intentionally filtering out for old stuff, my own tastes just seem to prefer it. Not sure if its due to my own age (I'm not that old, mid thirties), or if we've just so over optimized media for revenue extraction that its become too formulaic and boring.

[WCSTombs]

In general old good stuff is easier to find than new good stuff, since over time the bad stuff becomes more irrelevant, but I feel there's also some truth to the over-optimization as you put it.

However, while I mostly agree with the sentiment, in my opinion there is some new good stuff (books, music, movies, etc.) still being created, even if it's harder to find in the sea of mediocrity.

[TFNA]

A significant amount of ebook reading now is romance/erotica or fantasy (or combined "romantasy") genres by readers for whom something a decade old won't appeal. An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time), or it isn't what one's peers are reading and one wants to connect with a community of other readers online or in school/university, etc.

Obviously if one doesn't read these genres, this is a whole foreign world, but it is increasingly the state of mainstream fiction reading, and AI slop is a problem for them that you may be asked to help avoid if you are the nerdy loved one of such a reader.

[wredcoll]

> An old book could seem socially "problematic" from a 2026 lens (especially for young people for whom that is before their time),

Or, you know, you've just read the old books already because they came out 10 years ago and that's a lot of time to read.

I doubt it has anything to do with "romantasy" as a genre, anything that has people actually reading books, on a regular basis (as opposed to the people who mean reading as consuming one "notable" novel a year).

In any case, epublishing has made a lot more books available and filtering through them was a difficult task even before AI increased the output dramatically.

I've been saying for a while now there's a large untapped market for actually effective recommendation systems (almost certainly human driven given the demonstrated limitations of computer systems so far), as mentioned it was a problem to find "the good stuff" even among just self-published pre-ai books, now it's way beyond that.

I guess to some degree it's the same basic problem as spam filtering, but considerably more nuanced and difficult.

[JAlexoid]

I think we underestimate how much of reading happens from the shallow romance section of the bookstores.

It's big business and is really not that deep. For someone who isn't part of that world(which is big business) to judge what is good or not is hard.

And now it's cheap to produce that "pulp romance" novels en masse. So people who have little clue about this genre can produce something that seems good, but doesn't appeal to the reader.

[bunderbunder]

Actually effective, human-powered recommendation systems already exist, and they’re great.

My favorite implementation of this is talking to the clerks at my neighborhood bookstore. But the New York Review of Books is an alternative that’s easier to enjoy from home. For romance novels I like the blog Smart Bitches Trashy Books. Also this is kind of cheating but I have a family member who reviews books for a library journal so a lot of the time I just let her tell me what to read.

[kombookcha]

After many years on audible, I left because there was a deluge of AI generated works or AI voice 'readings' of (especially public domain) works on there. It's especially galling because they make up fake names for their AI voice and force me to trawl IMDB to figure out if this is a real guy who just randomly has really inappropriate tone and tempo for the passage I just heard, or if I have been scammed. Regardless, it's a clear and unacceptable deterioration of my product quality as a subscriber, so I'm off.

I don't know exactly how the incentives work for uploading shitloads of different slop readings of old novels on there, but it seemed to show no sign of slowing down.

[paxys]

So why not just disallow it entirely, if that’s the goal?

[JAlexoid]

Because AI music can be still valuable.

People who like to write lyrics, but can't afford to pay a vocalist still deserve to get their art materialized and distributed.

[red-iron-pine]

those people are called poets, or songwriters.

and they can pay someone who can play an instrument to make it happen, or do it themselves.

[JAlexoid]

You're absolutely right.

They can just come up with a few thousand dollars per hour for a few hours per song. Everyone has a few thousand dollars just lying around

[obloid]

I've encountered AI copies of songs from popular artists, hopefully this will stop or at least slow that down. I suspect the only reason those songs are uploaded is because people will accidentally listen to it and then the up loader gets the streaming revenue.

[Cthulhu_]

But that's not a new issue per se, low effort "covers" / "remixes" of songs has been an issue for a long time. Bonus point if said low-effort remix includes the original artist in the artist fields, so it shows up in the recommendations of fans of the original artist for a lot of accidental listens.

But AI does seem to make it easier.

[runarberg]

When low effort goes to no effort one can expect the problem to worsen by several orders of magnitude.

Also not that it takes skill to come up with a remix/cover/homage of a song that is close enough to the original that people can enjoy it like the original, but not so close that you are just plagiarizing it. So this problem before AI is limited to talented musicians who for some reason would rather copy somebody else then to make their own music.

[dawnerd]

It’s really bad on smaller artists that had moderate vitality on TikTok. Or at least it’s easier to spot since they have smaller catalogs. Encountered some on Apple Music the other day that outright had the artist listed and according to Apple it was from the artist.

IMO they need to focus on the scam side more than the AI side.

[lubujackson]

Sure, but how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music? This is new frontier of spam.

So begins the Clone Wars...

[addaon]

> how will Tidal consistently determine AI generated music?

Is this their responsibility? Just restrict payment to the registered copyright holder or their delegate, require registration of copyright for music to be payment-eligible, and escalate the problem to a federal crime with (presumedly) federal enforcement, no? Sure, some people will commit federal crimes to get a payout, but it's gotta reduce the problem massively.

[sarjann]

I think this is also a reason why X has gotten worse. They pay people for engagement.

[calny]

I'm curious about they will apply the part saying "AI-generated music will not be monetizable." What does AI-generated music mean, exactly? What if you make an AI generated bassline but produce the rest of a track by hand? How about an AI vocal? Or a mix of AI stems and your own recordings?

Tidal's terms and conditions (https://tidal.com/terms) say that:

> “AI-Generated Content” means any audio content, inclusive of musical works and sound recordings, that is wholly or substantially generated by generative artificial intelligence, with limited or no direct human creative input beyond an initial text prompt or similar instruction. ... You acknowledge that AI detection technology may produce false positives or false negatives.

And:

> If you use TIDAL Upload, your Tracks may be scanned for the purpose of identifying whether the content is AI-Generated Content, and to label such content accordingly on the Tidal platform. You acknowledge that such scanning and labeling is performed on a best-efforts basis and that Tidal shall not be liable for any inaccuracies in AI detection or labeling. AI-Generated Content uploaded to Tidal is not eligible for monetization. If you believe your Tracks were erroneously tagged as AI-Generated, you can reach out to [e-mail].

[summarybot]

As a musician I can definitely tell when a song has been arranged by AI but performed by humans. There are a couple of chart-toppers done this way. I won't give up the ghost, though ;)

[Slow_Hand]

It would be far more interesting if you did. Not sure why you feel need to keep it secret.

[calny]

I’m also curious! Are you keeping a secret because you don’t want people to try to find work arounds, kind of like prompting LLMs not to say “delve” or “tapestry” in order to make your AI writing sound less like AI? Or is it something else?

[Foreignborn]

are there tells beyond the lyrics? I swear there are a number of songs using out of “human distribution” words, trigrams, etc.

Is it overall song structure?

[ozzmotik]

as someone who extensively uses generative AI in my creative process, I personally have not found any reliable tells in my output to distinguish it from traditionally produced music, with the exception of when suno goes off the rails and just generates a 7:59 piece that is just randomly averaging across latent space. but even that sounds less like AI generated slop and more like a plunderphonics adjacent sound collage.

now granted: I don't use AI to write my lyrics (with the exception of pieces framed as involving AI, eg. rap battles against AI), and furthermore beyond that, I also use my own musical productions from the past as audio uploads alongside my lyrics and my prompting strategy, so by definition I'd say my output is inherently going to be exploring sonic space that is not typically explored by most users, and as such if I am using my own output as the mechanism by which I'm evaluating this argument, then naturally it's probably going to be understandable as to why I find it so difficult to distinguish between AI and organic human effort.

but either way. I've had people express some level of intrigue at the level of variation and such present in my output artifacts, which to me suggests that this might be a relevant dimension within which to evaluate this specific character or quality of music as machine generated or human generated...

just some (admittedly not super well structured) thoughts it occurred to me to share.

[summarybot]

thank you for your thoughts as disheveled and unorganized as they may be ;)

can you tell me more about what "genres" you work in primarily? for example , when you prompt suno , what are the typical keywords you use to describe the atmosphere, rhythm, key/mood ? as chart-toppers typically fall into a narrow band of genre types.

[make3]

toupée fallacy

[FridgeSeal]

Nah name-and-shame them!

[injidup]

Tidal should simply ban AI generated music from upload if they are not willing to pay uploaders should the music become popular. Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

[lelanthran]

> Under these rules an AI generated country and western song that makes it to number 1 on the billboard chart makes Tidal money and the uploader nothing.

Why should the uploader get anything? I can agree that maybe they get a couple of dollars to cover their token cost, but since the uploader isn't paying royalties to the people who were used to train the model, I don't see any moral reason for the uploader to get anything,

[smithoc]

By that argument, why should any musician get anything? They're not paying royalties to the musicians who they listened to in the past and whose songs they trained on while they learned to play.

An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

Should everyone who used an 808 or autotune or amplifier distortion have their music be demonetized? Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

[lelanthran]

> An LLM can be a tool to make music. So is a synthesizer. So is a drum machine. So is a drum set. So is a piano. So is a guitar.

This is a nonsense argument. The drum, the synthesiser, piano and guitar exists without the need for millions of other peoples music to exist first.

The AI model cannot exist without being fed with other people's music.

> Or is the line on acceptable new technology drawn at exactly the moment you became an adult?

The argument is not "we should demonetise new technology", it's "this new technology cannot exist without existing art".

If you can create an AI that does not need to slurp up existing art (possible), then sure, you'd have a point. All you have now is a strawman.

[oasisbob]

> We will therefore not knowingly attribute royalties to music we identify as wholly AI-generated.

Seems like Tidal is leaning on a probable lack of copyright for fully generated works here, otherwise wouldn't this run head-first into the music modernization act?

[ikari_pl]

i feel like it's going to be hard to defend whether, for example, handwriting and rewriting the lyrics and style prompts is enough to make it classified as non AI generated in the end.

it's not like they'd make the subscription free if you listen to loyalties-free music only.

[p-e-w]

Indeed. When they say that AI music can’t be monetized, they of course mean “… except by us”.

[vkou]

The difference between AI and artists is that artists are humans, which should grant them more rights and fewer penalties than some fucking software.

Artists don't get penalized, but for that reason, we should penalize the hell out of it.

If a bunch of hyper intelligent space aliens came in and started squeezing the rest of us out of creative economic activity, they shouldn't be on an equal playing field either. Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.

[fxwin]

> Laws and rules exist to serve humans, not machines.

Machines don't go out on their own to create and upload music, they do so under human instruction, so their output should be policed the same way we police other machine generated output directed by humans.

[dawnerd]

I guess you haven’t seen some of the agentic stuff?

[fxwin]

I work with coding agents every day, I don't think they have ever started working on a project without me telling them to

[kalleboo]

OpenClaw does this kind of stuff. People give it a "personality" and let it go wild doing whatever it wants - finding and contributing PRs to GitHub projects, and yes also making music. It was all the rage like 2-5 months ago.

[fxwin]

And i would consider this as an agent doing things under human instruction

[h4ny]

Really don't mean any offence to your comment because you probably mean well but I have little tolerance for the "reasonable"/fence-sitting kind of comments on this kind of issues.

If they really cared to much about empowering people creating things for other people, like others have pointed out, they should just ban it.

Sure, in reality it's not so easy to just ban AI content because there is a spectrum of it and it's really not a clear-cut problem.

But your stance can be clear-cut, and in this messy world where there is no perfect solution one way or the other, your stance matters even more. You could either be seen as a fence sitter who allowed slop to happen, or someone who stands with human creativity battling against shitty people and their slop.

Please stop this kind of fence-sitting reasoning if you care about people.

[fxwin]

I'm not sure which part of my comment comes across as fence sitting to you, but to clarify:

- I think there are good and useful ways to use AI in art creation

- I also think that AI (especially end to end creation of full songs) is a massive problem for both content moderation and business model aspects of this type of platform

- I don't think a blanket ban on AI in <Field X> is a good idea (even a bad idea in almost all cases)

You can disagree with these three points and that's fine, but it's not fence sitting when someones position isnt 100% one way or the other

[mattmatheus]

Not sure about the stated principal, but I do think it follows the policy nicely. Yes, you can upload your AI generated music, but it will be tagged as such, and you cannot profit from it.

[fxwin]

The issue i have with it will depend heavily on implementation, i can see cases where songs that i would consider "produced and written" by people don't qualify for royalties under Tidal's guidelines. (I intentionally left out the "performed" part, since digital music production is way past the point where this was an easy and/or meaningful distinction)

[Grombobulous]

Isn’t it true that AI generated music holds no legal copyright?

[heffer]

In Canada (which I assume you were referring to, as you didn't specify a jurisdiction) this claim is currently in litigation, so there is no definitive answer as to whether AI generated music is copyrightable or not. The currently accepted definition of "originality" (as required by the Copyright Act) is that it must involve the claimed author's "skill and judgment". Whatever that may mean in the context of AI is currently left for the reader to decide.

[gonzalohm]

Why is that? And who draws the line? If I use a synthesizer to generate music, does that count as AI generated?

[Grombobulous]

I was under the impression that the US copyright office/various judges already determined that anything created 100% by AI is not copyrightable.

A synthesizer is not AI.

[Freedumbs]

What's the technical distinction? Do you mean music that is composed by an LLM when referring to AI? How can one draw the line? It's like saying math doesn't count if the doctor used a calculator or your house isn't real because electricity was used to assemble it.

[p-e-w]

Nothing is “created 100% by AI” though, because AIs don’t create things without human instructions.

[thewebguyd]

The US copyright office ruled that the instructions do not count. Prompt engineering does not constitute human authorship. Prompt is the command, but the machine determines the specific expressive elements of the output (according to the USCO).

Raw LLM output is automatically public domain.

[oasisbob]

How much instruction do you need though?

What if I prompt Claude to go prompt Suno? What if the same chain happens internally at Suno? Easy to imagine the human input being very dilute and a small part overall.

[make3]

Claude is a computer program, so is Suno. Someone has to pay Anthropic & to run Claude. AI does not have special moral grounding in our society.

[tgv]

The prompt is yours to copyright, the algorithm belongs to Google or Suno or whoever, but not the output. It is not your creation.

[thewebguyd]

Minor correction, but in the US it's not anything that's 100% by AI, it's LLM output itself is not copyrightable. Human elements injected into LLM output are.

Raw LLM output lacks human authorship, and it was ruled cannot be registered for copyright protection. Raw LLM output is automatically public domain (which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain).

Only the parts of a work that are human authored can be registered for copyright. If a work was created with AI assistance, the parts that were purely AI generated cannot be registered.

The US copyright office also ruled that prompt engineering does not count as human authorship.

So all those people using Suno to generate AI slop music and flooding the streaming services, their output is almost certainly public domain.

[gruez]

>(which is also why its silly for Anthropic to be in such a tizzy about China using Claude's output, Claude's output is public domain).

I don't see how it's any more weird than reddit/stackoverflow/linkedin trying to clamp down on AI scrapers, even though they don't own the copyright to the UGC that they're preventing the bots from accessing.

[thewebguyd]

The difference is in licensing. Those platforms are protecting (or rather, monetizing) a database of human authored assets which those humans have given them a license to exploit.

Anthropic (and others) are trying to protect a stream of uncopyrightable, public-domain machine outputs.

[make3]

That's honestly so dumb, if I use a non AI computerized tool to generate orders of notes or orders of characters, I own the output. AI is just that. It's a fancy computer program that cost billions to build.

This is giving weird independent moral grounding to AI as more than a computer that has never existed before. And what kind of AI does it count for ? Does it also count for image classifiers? For image quality improvers? etc

[thewebguyd]

The USCO's decision hinges on whether or not a human has predictive, mechanical control over the final output. The ruling applies to Generative AI, the USCO made a separate distinction for assistive AI, which image classifiers would fall under.

> “Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. … what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression and actually formed the traditional elements of authorship.”

The USCO doesn't care what type of algorithm is used, it cares who determined the traditional elements of authorship. If a human dictates the expression, and then uses a computer to clean, translate, or refine it, it is copyrightable. If a human just provides an idea and a generative algorithm creates the specific expression, the output is public domain. One is using spellcheck, the other is telling the computer "Write me a novel" and letting the computer generate it.

[platevoltage]

I don't think my Yamaha DX7 qualifies as AI in any sense of the word.

[otabdeveloper4]

AI is not a tool, it is an oracle.

Furthermore, it is an oracle built on copyright infringement.

Do you understand the difference between "tool" and "oracle"?

[my002]

AI is not an "oracle" no matter how much Altman and Amodei claim it is.

[mapontosevenths]

No. Explain.

[otabdeveloper4]

Tools are things that you 100 percent control based on nothing but your own skill.

Oracles are things that give you free stuff if you've been a good boy and respected the oracle's rituals.

[gonzalohm]

So if I sample a guitar because I don't know how to play the guitar, is the tool I used to sample it "an oracle"?

[giglamesh]

Tool was a kind of metal/funk band (or something like that) and Oracle is a database (management system) that somehow made a lot of money for a lot of consultants (and the oligarch owners) even though open source alternatives were far superior.

[ozzmotik]

I know this is perhaps a bit tongue-in-cheek but it's still astounding just how suspiciously accurate the implied parallel here is... lol

[victorbjorklund]

Depend on jurisdiction and probably how AI much is generated. If you write the lyrics but generate the song you still have copyright to the lyrics and so on