
  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel>
      <title>We are the music makers</title>
      <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/latest</link>
      <description>Music tech and AI in music: the news that matters, what we think about it, and a directory of the tools.</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 03:30:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
      <atom:link href="https://wearethemusicmakers.co/tags/format-counter-take/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
      
  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/opinion/publish-detector-error-rates-not-thresholds</guid>
    <title>The case for keeping AI detectors secret is strong. It still doesn&#39;t cover error rates</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/opinion/publish-detector-error-rates-not-thresholds</link>
    <description>The labels&#39; subpoena fight with DistroKid has revived calls for distributors to publish everything about their AI detectors. The best counter-argument, that disclosure helps spammers beat the filter, is right about methods and wrong about error rates. Here is where we think the line goes.</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 03:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai-detection</category><category>ai-music</category><category>distribution</category><category>distrokid</category><category>policy</category><category>format-counter-take</category>
  </item>

    </channel>
  </rss>
