Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stable Audio Open

stability.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: Stable Audio Open

#71

Post by pa7x1 »

rfoo wrote: post #62
pa7x1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, friends also won't let friends skip the fact that circulating supply of ETH is now decreasing instead of increasing. This changes absolutely nothing of the calculation. Furthermore, the change in circulating supply last year was of 0.07%. > Also, only ~30% tokens are staked. Correct. > The 30% who chose to stake essentially tax the other 70% in use. There is something called opportunity cost. With the existen…

> Participating in staking is fully permissionless, stakers are not taxing non-stakers. They are being remunerated for their work. That's just a more polite way to say tax. Being permissionless is cool, but it's still tax in my dict. > There is something called opportunity cost. And, who is going to be able to have a larger percentage of their funds staked, a poor or a whale? You need a (mostly) fixed amount of liqui…

> That's just a more polite way to say tax. Being permissionless is cool, but it's still tax in my dict.

It most certainly is not. They are doing a work for the network and getting remunerated for it. That's not a tax. That's what is commonly referred to as a job. A kid that delivers newspapers over the weekend is not taxing the kid that decides not to. Both make a free decision on what to do with their time and effort given how much it's worth to them. Running a validator takes skill, time, opportunity cost, and you assume certain risks of capital loss. You are getting remunerated for it.

> And, who is going to be able to have a larger percentage of their funds staked, a poor or a whale? You need a (mostly) fixed amount of liquidity to use the thing.

Indeed, the protocol cannot solve wealth inequality. That's an out of protocol issue. It cannot cure cancer either.

> In short, I don't see anything preventing me to run 10000 validators with 32 ETH each with very similar cost to running just one. It's certainly not linear.

There are some fixed costs, indeed. But they are rather negligible. You need a consumer-grade PC (1000 USD) and consumer-grade broadband to solo stake. Or you can use a Liquid Staking Derivative which will have no fixed costs but will have a 10% cut. The curve of APY as a function of stake is very flat. Almost anything else around us has greater barriers of entry or economies of scale.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#72

Post by hierophantical »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #8

It produces decent audio, but something unpleasant about its high frequencies. And no voices, it doesn't seem to talk or sing. Udio, so far, is undefeated. And ElevenLabs' music demos were very very impressive, but it's still not released.

None of these are impressive in the least. Anything I have heard from Udio is basically trash. It is the AI art equivalent of synthetic cats and pretty face shots. Who cares.

What is ultimately going to be undefeated is training your own model.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#73

Post by immibis »

simonw wrote: post #6
minimaxir wrote: post #2

Note that this has the typical noncommercial "you have to pay for a membership to use commercially" Stability license.

Sigh: Stable Audio Open is an open source text-to-audio model [...] License: https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-audio-open-1.0/blo... STABILITY AI NON-COMMERCIAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT Stability are one of the worse offenders for abusing the term "open source" at the moment.

to be fair, open-source is far too corporate-friendly at the moment. it should be more non-commercial. To what extent, is an open question.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#74

Post by Unai »

tomcam wrote: post #54
Workaccount2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that AI trained on artist created content is theft is kind of ridiculous anyway. Transformers aren't large archives of data with needles and thread to sew together pieces. The whole argument is meant to stifle an existential threat, not to halt some illegal transgression. If they cared about the latter a simple copyright filter on the output of the models would be all that's needed.

Yet before “safeguards” were added a prompt could say “in the style of Studio Ghibli” and you could get exactly that. Would it be possible if Studio Ghibli images had not been used in the training?

I don't understand. If I make a painting (hell, or a whole animated movie) in the style of Studio Ghibli, am I infringing their copyright? I don't think so. A style is just an idea, if you want to protect an idea to the point of no one even getting inspired by it just don't let it out of your brain.

If the produced work is not a copy, why does it matter if it was generated by a biological brain or by a mechanical one?

Re: Stable Audio Open

#75

Post by ziofill »

GaggiX wrote: post #65
jrm4 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how the argument is ridiculous; and I'll bet that a jury would find the idea that "there is a copy inside" at least reasonable, especially if you start with the premise that "the machine is not a human being." What you're left with is a machine that produces "things that strongly resemble the original, that would not have been produced, had you not fed the original into the machine." The fact that there…

Having exact copies of the samples inside the model weights would be an extremely inefficient use of space, and also it would not generalize, unless it generated a copy so close to the original that it would violate copyright law if used, I wouldn't find it very reasonable to think that there is a memorized copy inside the model weights somewhere.

A program that can produce copies is the same as a copy. How that copy comes into being (whether out of an algorithm or read from a support) is related, but not relevant.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#76

Post by bckr »

cthalupa wrote: post #60
bckr wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no coherent data corpus (compressed or not) in ChatGPT. I disagree. If you can get the model to output an article verbatim, then that article is stored in that model. Just because it’s not stored in the same format is meaningless. It’s the same content regardless of whether it’s stored as plaintext, compressed text, PDF, png, or weights in a model. Just because you need an algorithm such as a specialized p…

> If you can get the model to output an article verbatim, then that article is stored in that model. You can't get it to do that, though.[1] The NYT vs OpenAI case, if anything, shows that even with significant effort trying to get a model to regurgitate specific work, it cannot do it. They found articles it had overfit on due to snippets being reposted elsewhere across the internet, and they could only get it to out…

> The NYT, knowing the correct order, re-arranged them to fit the ordering in the article.

> Even doing this, they were only able to get a hundred or so words out of the 15k+ word articles.

OK, that’s less material than I believed, which shows the details matter. But we agree that the overfit material, while limited, is stored in the model.

Of course, this can be (and surely is) mitigated by filtering the output, as long as the product is the output and not the model itself.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#77

Post by jeroenhd »

immibis wrote: post #73
simonw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh: Stable Audio Open is an open source text-to-audio model [...] License: https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-audio-open-1.0/blo... STABILITY AI NON-COMMERCIAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT Stability are one of the worse offenders for abusing the term "open source" at the moment.

to be fair, open-source is far too corporate-friendly at the moment. it should be more non-commercial. To what extent, is an open question.

Open Source, as used by the most influential open source projects, is corporate-friendly by definition.

There are good reasons to use something more aggressive. I'm a big fan of the strict copyleft licenses for this, even if that means companies like Google don't want to that software anymore.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#78

Post by everfree »

rfoo wrote: post #62
pa7x1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, friends also won't let friends skip the fact that circulating supply of ETH is now decreasing instead of increasing. This changes absolutely nothing of the calculation. Furthermore, the change in circulating supply last year was of 0.07%. > Also, only ~30% tokens are staked. Correct. > The 30% who chose to stake essentially tax the other 70% in use. There is something called opportunity cost. With the existen…

> Participating in staking is fully permissionless, stakers are not taxing non-stakers. They are being remunerated for their work. That's just a more polite way to say tax. Being permissionless is cool, but it's still tax in my dict. > There is something called opportunity cost. And, who is going to be able to have a larger percentage of their funds staked, a poor or a whale? You need a (mostly) fixed amount of liqui…

> And, who is going to be able to have a larger percentage of their funds staked, a poor or a whale?

This is a truth that's fundamental to all types of investing. Advantaged people can set aside millions and not touch it for a year or five or twenty. Disadvantaged people can't invest $20 because there's a good chance they'll need it to buy dinner.

Stocks, bonds, CDs, real estate, it all works like this. You've touched on a fundamental property of wealth.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#79

Post by jeroenhd »

elpocko wrote: post #17
simonw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh: Stable Audio Open is an open source text-to-audio model [...] License: https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-audio-open-1.0/blo... STABILITY AI NON-COMMERCIAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT Stability are one of the worse offenders for abusing the term "open source" at the moment.

Every time I call out the absurd interpretation of "Open Source" in this space in general, I get showered with downvotes and hateful attacks. One time someone posted their "AI mashup" project on reddit, that egregiously violated the terms of not only one, but several GPL-licensed projects. Calling this out earned me a lot of downvotes and replies with absolutely insane justifications from people with no clue. No one…

AI fans don't seem to care much for copyright, unless it's their work being stolen (remember the people that got mad at "prompt stealing"?).

Companies are more risk-averse, though, and hobbyists on Reddit don't have the money to do anything serious with this software.

Re: Stable Audio Open

#80

Post by Arainach »

GaggiX wrote: post #65
jrm4 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how the argument is ridiculous; and I'll bet that a jury would find the idea that "there is a copy inside" at least reasonable, especially if you start with the premise that "the machine is not a human being." What you're left with is a machine that produces "things that strongly resemble the original, that would not have been produced, had you not fed the original into the machine." The fact that there…

Having exact copies of the samples inside the model weights would be an extremely inefficient use of space, and also it would not generalize, unless it generated a copy so close to the original that it would violate copyright law if used, I wouldn't find it very reasonable to think that there is a memorized copy inside the model weights somewhere.

An MP3 file is a lossy copy, but is still copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement doesn't require exact copies.

Post reply on HN