1.1M views · Apr 13, 2025 · 27:11 · 2 HN recommenders · 5 mentions · discussed 2025–2026
Musician Benn Jordan explains and demonstrates adversarial noise that poison-pills music files against AI training and scraping.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN points to it in AI music and data-poisoning threads as the source for this technique.
“I would encourage you guys to watch his video”HN comment, 2025
“I would encourage you guys to watch his video”
Explains poison-pilling music against AI training scraping.
I would encourage you guys to watch his video before going down the argument of saying that there's no money in music creation. There's also just enjoyment in the act of creation and even if you're doing it for free, why should GenAI companies then be able to take your artwork, incorporate that into their dataset and profit of the artist's unpaid labor? this video
“Benn Jordon shows how to poison pill AI harvesting music for training”
Shows how to poison-pill music against AI harvesting.
Related: Benn Jordon shows how to poison pill AI harvesting music for training The Art Of Poison-Pilling Music Files this video
“how does this compare with Benn Jordan's poison pill for music [0]?”
Related poison pill method for music compared to LLM poisoning.
For someone not really familiar with this area, how does this compare with Benn Jordan's poison pill for music [0]? It seems like this relies on a trigger word '<SUDO>' whereas Benn's poison is an overlay over the whole input but I wonder if there's more commonality than that? [0] this video
“This may be of interest to you.”
Pointer to related researchers and AI music detection.
This may be of interest to you. Not exactly what you’re asking, but it may give you clues as to people and research to check out. this video I also remembered a friend telling me about someone talking about a method to detect AI music. I forget the specifics (I haven’t watched the video, was only told about it) but I remember the channel. link
Tangential citation in a privacy OS discussion.
> are by incompetent/lazy/pressured devs who just throw in some library and don't even care that it leaks data to Google Even if I agreed with this statement, I don't understand why it is better to put limited/precious resources something the app developers can easily circumvent, praying they never stop being incompetent/lazy/pressured and tell device owners it is an important privacy feature? Instead of waiting for the apps to become actively hostile why not just feed them fake data in the first place? Like the scoped access permissions do? If you really want to do this, you (and any GrapheneOS user) can do it today with mitmproxy and RethinkDNS but I think it is perfectly OK users choose their (privacy-invasive) apps and choose how to mitigate annoyances like that themselves. Otherwise they need to complain to the app developers and app stores. > That's why I said that the main focus of GOS is security, not privacy. If they cared about privacy primarily, they would actively support microG and NetGuard, or at least similar solutions. That feels more like you are framing your opinion as a fact. To me it is not so obvious. When I think of privacy, I think of Privacy Enhancing Technologies ( link ). I also think of things like: * separate network namespaces for profiles ( link ) and/or a GrapheneOS-Gateway equivalent to link , * built-in OS support for chaining VPNs together or splitting different traffic over different privacy-enhanced networks like in RethinkDNS, * adve
