Wait, that wasn't my Spotify Wrapped

Spotify Wrapped is my Super Bowl.

Every day in early December, I open my Spotify and think “this could be the day.” And when it is, I make it known by posting the infamous poster of my top five artists and top five songs.

But this year, on the Dec. 4 release, something felt off. For me, it was the fact that “I Love You, I’m Sorry (Live)” by Gracie Abrams wasn’t in my top five songs (One day, I played it 75 times, according to AirBuds. Don’t fret, Abrams was still my top artist). 

For others, it was an array of complaints: one of my friends said they didn’t care about their AI wrapped podcast; another said the “vibe” section felt too much like the “Daylist” playlist (a playlist curated at different times of the day depending on listening habits); two friends said they didn’t listen to their top artist as much as they thought, and many said their top songs simply weren’t accurate. 

Other Spotify users felt the same; they turned to social media and complained about AI. An Instagram post from user @commonsearth, a sustainable lifestyle app’s profile, uploaded a post featuring online opinions that encapsulated what younger audiences felt:

“Spotify Wrapped is underwhelming and reeks of AI.”

“No quirky interactive bits.”

“So Spotify didn’t give us something fun like the personalities or different genres for Wrapped but involved AI instead that adds nothing ... right.”

Spotify began investing in AI or AI-related companies beginning in 2013 to better personalize music recommendations and generate algorithms to enhance user experience, according to Marketing AI Institute. Since then, Spotify has aimed to land their first profitable year on record through greater investments in AI directly, according to Axios. 

“Through the combination of Spotify’s powerful personalization technology and generative AI, we’ve created hyper-personalized Wrapped experiences that connect millions of listeners worldwide with the music and audio they love,” Spotify said.

AI does have a role in Wrapped, but it’s unclear exactly how large of a role. That is, there isn’t a clear divide made publicly known on the distinction of roles between humans and AI.

I agree that using AI can be a beneficial tool to enhance company earning projections, redirect human jobs and promote a more efficient business. It’s important to adapt to the growing roles of technology and AI, but they become an issue when the line between human creativity and automatic AI response becomes blurred and disconnected. This disconnection has already been felt at large companies, including Spotify.

Last December, the company laid off more than 1,500 employees  — a resounding 17% of total staff. Let me be clear, there was no mention of jobs being replaced by AI. 

However, there were mentions that the company had “a ways to go before we are both productive and efficient. Today, we still have too many people dedicated to supporting work and even doing work around the work rather than contributing to opportunities with real impact. More people need to be focused on delivering for our key stakeholders – creators and consumers. In two words, we have to become relentlessly resourceful,” Daniel Ek, Spotify’s CEO said in a statement.

Using AI or other technologies, as implied, isn’t controversial. What’s controversial — and dangerous — is totally replacing human personality, edge and dimension with an algorithm, an inherently mechanical scaffold of response. 

Again, AI has a place, one that is similar to “a lazy assistant,” as a journalist told me once. Of course, he used this in reference to basic code generation and basic data analysis. Creativity and interpretation require the human mind.

I think we should approach AI with this mindset; it can be a powerful tool for efficiency, but there is a time when its use is overreaching. That time was Spotify Wrapped.