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

Stable-Audio-Demo

stability-ai.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#101

Post by bryanrasmussen »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #88
JoshTriplett wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. And likely proprietary ML as well, hopefully. (To be clear, I think AI is an absolutely incredible innovation, capable of both good and harm; I also think it's not unreasonable to expect it to play a safer, slower strategy than the Uber "break the rules to grow fast until they catch up to you" playbook.) I'm all for eliminating copyright. Unt…

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting out code that violates copyright, the vast majority of the outputs do not. Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. There’s also the mor…

>Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language.

really it seems more like someone was afraid of angering Nintendo who is a corporate adversary one does not like to fight and thus it has a bunch of blocks to keep from generating anything that offends Nintendo, that does not really translate to quickly and easily stopping and blocking offending generations across every copyrighted work in the world.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#102

Post by PeterStuer »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #73
raverbashing wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really comparing licensing for a profession with licensing of IP?

It’s much the same. Only authorized people are allowed to do X. Since X costs a lot of money, by definition it can’t be open source. There are no hobbyist pilots that carry passengers without a license, and if there are, they’re quickly told to stop. Generative AI faces a real chance of having the same fate. Which means open source will look similar to these planes trying to compete with commercial aircraft: https://…

If I fly a plane and crash, my passengers die. If I generate an image using a model whose training included some unlicensed imagery... Disney misses out on a fraction of a cent?

There is a real reason why some professions are licenced and others are not.

Your analogy is nonsensical. Not having a better one is irrelevant.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#103

Post by nness »

superb_dev wrote: post #71
jsiepkes wrote: post #66

> Warning: This website may not function properly on Safari. For the best experience, please use Google Chrome. We've come full circle with the 90's and Internet Explorer. Well I guess this time the dominant browser is opensource so that's atleast something... Can someone please create an animated GIF button for Chrome which says: "Best viewed with Google Chrome"?

Website works fine on safari too, I didn’t notice any issues

Same, I wonder what issue they thought they had...

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#104

Post by leodriesch »

berkes wrote: post #92
laborcontract wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried generating music on stableaudio.com and, yes, it's bad. However, given the blistering pace of developing in these models, I would not be surprised if these sound incredible in a year or two.

Everyone every time seems to assume a linear (or exponential) curve upwards. But what is the proof for that? I consider it far more likely that we had a breakthrough and now rushing towards the next plateau. Maybe are nearing that. Like in the curve of a PID controller. It's how most or many human improvements go.

I'd say most are thinking of Midjourneys success in image generation when talking about this kind of progress.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#105

Post by Ukv »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #75
sillysaurusx wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.

> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. And likely proprietary ML as well, hopefully. (To be clear, I think AI is an absolutely incredible innovation, capable of both good and harm; I also think it's not unreasonable to expect it to play a safer, slower strategy than the Uber "break the rules to grow fast until they catch up to you" playbook.) I'm all for eliminating copyright. Unt…

> Fair use was intended for things like reviews, commentary, education, remixing, non-commercial use, and many other things

"many other things" has included, for example, Google Books scanning millions of in-copyright books, storing internally them in full, and making snippets available.

The basis for copyright itself is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". For that reason a key consideration of fair use, which you've skipped entirely, is the transformative nature of the new work. As in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music: "The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors", defined as "whether the new work merely 'supersede[s] the objects' of the original creation [...] or instead adds something new".

> "How much of the work will you use?" - All of it

For the substantiality factor, courts make the distinction between intermediate copying and what is ultimately made available to the public. As in Sega v. Accolade: "Accolade, a commercial competitor of Sega, engaged in wholesale copying of Sega's copyrighted code as a preliminary step in the development of a competing product" yet "where the ultimate (as opposed to direct) use is as limited as it was here, the factor is of very little weight". Or as in Authors Guild v. Google: “verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is ‘not reveal[ed] . . . to the public.’”

The factor also takes into account whether the copying was necessary for the purpose. As in Kelly v. Arriba Soft: "If the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use, then this factor will not weigh against him or her"

While there are still cases of overfitting resulting in generated outputs overly similar to training data, I think it's more favorable to AI than simply "it trained on everything, so this factor is maximally against fair use".

> Directly competes with the original, killing or devaluing large parts of it

The factor is specifically the effect of the use upon the work - not the extent to which your work would be devalued even if it had not been trained on your work.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#106

Post by npteljes »

RobinL wrote: post #45
lbourdages wrote: post #2

This is right into the "uncanny valley" of music. It definitely sounded "like music", but none of it is what a human would produce. There's just something off.

Here is a silly song I generated using suno.ai, which I have found to be incredibly impressive (at least, a small percentage of its outputs are very good, most are bad). I think it's good enough that most humans wouldn't realise it's AI generated. https://app.suno.ai/song/8a64868d-9dd3-46db-91af-f962d4bec8b...

That is fantastic. It has a bit of weirdness in the background, but nothing that would stop me from enjoying it.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#108

Post by sillysaurusx »

PeterStuer wrote: post #102
sillysaurusx wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s much the same. Only authorized people are allowed to do X. Since X costs a lot of money, by definition it can’t be open source. There are no hobbyist pilots that carry passengers without a license, and if there are, they’re quickly told to stop. Generative AI faces a real chance of having the same fate. Which means open source will look similar to these planes trying to compete with commercial aircraft: https://…

If I fly a plane and crash, my passengers die. If I generate an image using a model whose training included some unlicensed imagery... Disney misses out on a fraction of a cent? There is a real reason why some professions are licenced and others are not. Your analogy is nonsensical. Not having a better one is irrelevant.

If training data requires licensing fees, ML practitioners will become a licensed field de facto, because no one in the open source world will have the resources to pursue it on their own.

Perhaps a better analogy is movies. At least with acting, you can make your own movies, even if you’re on a shoestring budget. With ML, you quite literally can’t make a useful model. There’s not enough uncopyrighted data to do anything remotely close to commercial models, even in spirit.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#109

Post by dr_dshiv »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #84
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. OpenAI must lose and it must not be possible to have proprietary models based on copyrighted works. It's not fair use because OpenAI is profiting from the copyright holders work and substituting for it while not giving them recompense. The alternative is that any models widely trained on copyrighted work are uncopyrightable and must be disclosed, along with their data sources. In essence this is…

For what it’s worth, I agree with your second paragraph. But it would take legislation to enforce that. For now, it’s unclear that OpenAI will lose. Quite the opposite; I’ve spoken with a few lawyers who believe OpenAI is on solid legal footing, because all that matters is whether the model’s output is infringing. And it’s not. No one reads books via ChatGPT, and Dalle 3 has tight controls preventing it from generati…

Proposal: revenue from Generative AI should be taxed 10% for an international endowment for the arts. In exchange, copyright claims are settled.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#110

Post by darkwater »

bane wrote: post #9
lbourdages wrote: post #2

This is right into the "uncanny valley" of music. It definitely sounded "like music", but none of it is what a human would produce. There's just something off.

The overall audio quality sounds pretty good and it seems to do a good job of sustaining a consistent rhythm and musical concept. But I agree there's something "off" about some of the clips. - The rave music sounds great. But that's because EDM can be quite out there in terms of musical construction. - The guitar sounds weird because it doesn't sound like chords a human hand can make on a tuning nobody tunes their gu…

> - drum solo - there's some weird issues in some of the drum sounds, things like cymbals, rides and hats changing tone in the middle of a note, some of the toms sound weird, it sounds like a mix of stick and brush and stick and stick and brush all at the same time...it's sort of the same problem the solo guitar has where it's just not produced within the constraints of what a drum player can actually do on an instrument made of actual drums

And I would say that there is also background noise from time to time, at some point I heard some noise akin to voices. Maybe it is some artifact caused by the training data (many drum solos are performed exclusively live).

Post reply on HN