5 Comments
User's avatar
jd's avatar

I agree with the core premise here — retention-optimized algorithms flatten taste. They surface what’s familiar, not what’s deeply loved.

But I’m not convinced the answer is returning to a smaller class of human gatekeepers either.

The real issue isn’t “algorithm vs. human.”

It’s who gets to signal what matters — and whether that signal is transparent.

Right now discovery is shaped inside closed systems by proprietary algorithms and editorial playlists. That structure favors safety and incumbency.

What if instead of optimizing for passive consumption, we optimized for active participation?

When listeners have to signal support — not just stream — you start capturing a very different dataset. You measure conviction, not convenience.

Human taste absolutely matters.

The question is: do we centralize it again… or distribute it?

That’s the more interesting frontier. That's what we're focused on at audiopool.io

jd's avatar

This has motivated me to start my own substack. Thank you.

musicben's avatar

love to hear it!

jd's avatar

thx. have been reading your stuff and just felt it was time to add something to the conversation. i have never blogged before. here's my first: https://jd12817819.substack.com/p/thoughts-on-music-discovery?r=6pakl4 going to drop a few here associated with my work and company. best to you sir.

Kevin Smeltzer's avatar

wow. thank you for such detailed observations about the difference in emotional response to AI music vs human music. imagine using science to defeat AI! I agree 100% that music is about feeling something. since AI doesn't yet know to feel it can't compete with a human.