Here's a different question: Can you use the audio output this produces for anything else other than "research purposes"?
[deleted]
Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
111–120 of 335 posts
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the key word there is "noncommercial".
Yes, but you can easily make noncommercial use of an art generator. Obviously, you can't host a commercial art generation service with a noncommercial-use license, and (insofar as art produced by a generator is a derivative work of the model weights, which is a controversial and untested legal theory) you can’t make commercial art with a noncommercial license, but not all art is commercial.
"Noncommercial art" is not a thing in the eyes of the law. Even if you don't intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial. That's why CC-BY-NC has to have a special "filesharing is non-commercial" statement in it, because people have made successful legal arguments that it is.
You're probably thinking of "not charging a fee to use", which is a subset of all the ways you can monetize a creative work. You can still make money off of AudioCraft by just hosting it with banner ads next to the output. Even a "no monetization" clause[0] would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only", because it'd at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices.
[0] Which already precludes the use of AudioCraft music on YouTube since you can't do unmonetized uploads anymore
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is purely a function of everyone remembering the RIAA's decade-long campaign to prevent people from taking the music they had rightfully stolen. As far as I'm aware LLaMA was trained on "publicly available data"[0], not "licensed data". Furthermore, MusicGen's weights are licensed CC-BY-NC, which is effectively a nonlicense as there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator[1]. This is not only…
My understanding (IANAL) [1] is that copyright licenses have no say on the output of software. Further, CC licenses don't say anything about running or using software (or model weights). It's therefore questionable whether the CC-BY-NC license actually prevents commercial use of the model. [1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12070/allowed...
You're correct, but no one has had the balls (or the lawyers) to clarify this in court yet. Expect to see hosting providers complying with takedown requests for the foreseeable future.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#114Anyone feel like with the flood of AI generated content there's a risk of the past being 'erased'. Like in 10 years we won't be able to tell if any information from the past is real or fake - sounds, pictures, videos, etc.. Like we need to start cryptographically signing all content now if there's any hope of being able to verify it as 'real' 10 years from now.
No. We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. For a long time now, we've had to separate out what's credible from what's bullshit.
Fortunately, it's pretty simple in real life. We have certain publications and sources we trust, whether they're the NYT or a respected industry blog. We know they take accurate reporting seriously, fire journalists who are caught fabricating things, etc.
If we see a clip on YouTube from the BBC, we can trust it's almost certainly legit. If it's some crazy claim from a rando and you care whether it's real, it's easy to look it up to see if anyone credible has confirmed it.
So no, no worry at all about the past being erased.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#115Anyone feel like with the flood of AI generated content there's a risk of the past being 'erased'. Like in 10 years we won't be able to tell if any information from the past is real or fake - sounds, pictures, videos, etc.. Like we need to start cryptographically signing all content now if there's any hope of being able to verify it as 'real' 10 years from now.
With 90% of human generated media content being forgettable within weeks of publication, and AI not yet capable of matching even average human content (much less pro level), it’ll be some time before we have to worry about AI overwhelming most media content and erasing the works of memorable human authors.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#116The fact that it generates a song for the prompt "Earthy tones, environmentally conscious ... organic instrumentation" goes a long way to proving that English words no longer mean anything particularly.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#117Anyone know if there are ways, as-is, to speed this up on Apple Silicon?
This setup takes 5 minutes:
- Mac Studio M1 Max 64GB memory
- running musicgen_app.py
- model: facebook/musicgen-medium
- duration: 10sRe: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to distort the issue a little bit. If you purchase the music, you have a (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit) license to do certain things with the music, entirely independent of any concept of "fair use". The question is not "is training part of fair use?" but "is training part of, implicitly or explicitly, the rights I already have after purchase?" Given that "training" can be done by simple playing…
In the US, exceptions to copyright come across in two distinct bundles: first sale and fair use. They exist specifically because of the intersection between copyright law and two other principles of the US constitution: - First sale: The Takings Clause prohibits government theft of private property without compensation. Because copyright owners are using a government-granted monopoly to enforce their rights, we have…
It hasn't been established yet that a diffusion-model generated work is a copy or a derivative of any particular element of the training set.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#119All very interesting, but how would a musician ever be interested in creating the result of "Pop dance track with catchy melodies, tropical percussions, and upbeat rhythms, perfect for the beach"? This stuff will create a lot of Muzak for sure. Actually turning into anything useful for musician? I honestly doubt it, and I'm happy if it stays that way.
Saying that engineers don't understand the arts is a bit of a trite generalization, but reading the way Meta markets these "music making" contraptions is really cringe inducing. Have you ever, at least, listened to some music?
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't litigate a person doing this at home, and never redistributing. I suppose they might try, anyway.
Is training a "pirate model" something you'd reasonably be able to do at home though, given the compute requirements? The analogous "image generation at home" is only possible due to a for-profit entity with significant resources choosing to (a) play fast-and-loose with the provenance of their training set and (b) giving away the resulting model for free, if the open source community had to train their models from sc…
You could take a model trained on CC content and then fine tune it on copyrighted material cheaply and quickly