euronews.com
Deezer Reports 28% of Uploaded Music is AI-Generated
French music streaming service Deezer revealed that 28% of music uploaded to its platform is fully AI-generated, amounting to 30,000 AI tracks daily, an 18% increase since February.
- What is the immediate impact of Deezer's discovery of a large amount of AI-generated music on their platform?
- Deezer has implemented an AI-detection tool, labeling AI-generated songs and removing them from algorithmic recommendations and editorial playlists to minimize impact on artists' royalties and maintain user transparency. This follows an 18% increase in daily AI-generated song submissions since February.
- What are the potential future implications of the rise of AI-generated music for the music industry and artists?
- A study by CISAC estimates a potential 25% income loss for music professionals by 2028 due to AI, amounting to €4 billion. Deezer's actions suggest a growing need for platforms to address the issue of AI-generated content and its impact on artists' livelihoods and the music industry's economic sustainability.
- How does Deezer's approach to AI-generated music compare to competitors, and what broader industry concerns does this highlight?
- Deezer's proactive approach contrasts with Spotify, which has faced criticism for allowing AI-generated music, including the band The Velvet Sundown which amassed 400,000 monthly listeners. This highlights concerns about AI music 'polluting' platforms, potentially reducing artist income and impacting royalty payouts.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents Deezer's actions in a positive light, highlighting their proactive approach to AI-generated music. The framing emphasizes Deezer's transparency and efforts to minimize negative impacts on artists and fans, contrasting this with Spotify's perceived inaction and negative consequences. The headline could be more neutral; instead of focusing on the percentage of AI-generated music, it could focus on the industry-wide issue of AI music.
Language Bias
The article uses language that portrays Deezer favorably ('proactive approach', 'transparent user experience') and Spotify negatively ('under fire', 'allowing AI music'). Terms like 'alarming new figure' and 'polluting listening platforms' create a negative connotation around AI-generated music. More neutral alternatives could include: 'significant increase', 'increasing presence', and 'impact on the music industry'.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on Deezer's response and the negative aspects of AI-generated music on the industry, but doesn't fully explore potential benefits or alternative perspectives. It omits discussion of the artistic potential of AI or the possibility of collaborative efforts between human artists and AI. The article also doesn't explore solutions from different perspectives.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between Deezer's proactive approach and Spotify's perceived inaction. The reality is likely more nuanced, with varying approaches and degrees of success across different platforms. The article positions the narrative as only two choices: Deezer's approach vs. Spotify's approach, thus reducing the complexity of the issue and failing to highlight other platform responses.
Sustainable Development Goals
The rise of AI-generated music threatens the livelihoods of musicians by reducing demand for human-created music and potentially lowering royalty payouts. The article highlights the significant economic impact this could have, with estimates suggesting a potential 25% income loss for music professionals by 2028. This directly affects decent work and economic growth within the music industry.