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

111–120 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#111

Post by 4bpp »

multjoy wrote: post #59
sillysaurusx wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly not. Making something illegal has social effects, not just legal effects. I’ve grown tired of being verbally spit on for books3. One lovely fellow even said that he hoped my daughter grows up resenting me for it. It being legal is the only guard against that kind of thing. People will still be angry, but they won’t be so numerous. Right now everyone outside of AI almost universally despises the way AI is traine…

If everyone is unhappy with your rampant piracy, then perhaps that is a sign that you’re doing it wrong?

Is there evidence that it's actually everyone or even close to everyone? The core innovation that the internet brought to harassment is that it is sufficient for some 0.0...01% of all people to take issue with you and be sufficiently dedicated to it for every waking minute of your life to be filled with a non-stop torrent of vitriol, as a tiny percentage of all internet users still amounts to thousands.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#112

Post by kleiba »

My son suggested to play "Calm meditation music to play in a spa lobby" and "Drum solo" at the same time - sounds pretty good, actually...

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#113

Post by PeterStuer »

"Gen AI is the only mass-adoption technology that claims it's Ok to exploit everyone's work without permission, payment, or bringing them any other benefit."

Is it? What about the printing press, photography, the copier, the scanner ...

Sure, if a commercial image is used in a commercial setting, there is a potential legal case that could argue about infringement. This should NOT depend on the production means, but on the merit of the comparisons of the produced images.

Xerox should not be sued because you can use a copier to copy a book (trust me kids, book copying used to be very, very big).

Art by its social nature is always derivative, I can use diffusion models to create uncontestably original imagery. I can also try to get them to generate something close to an image in the training set if the model was large enough compared to the training set or the work just realy formulaic. However. It would be far easier and more efficient to just Google the image in the first place and patch it up with some Photoshop if that was my goal.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#114

Post by slicerdicer1 »

obviously someone shadowy and non-corporate (eg. an artist) just needs to come out and make a model which includes promptable artist/producer/singer/instrumentalist/song metadata.

describing music without referring to musicians is so clunky because music is never labelled well. of course saying "disco house with funk bass and soulful vocals, uplifting" is going to be bland. Saying "disco house with nile rodgers rhythm guitar, michael mcdonald singing, and a bassline in the style of patrick alavi's power" is going to get you some magic

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#115

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

andybak wrote: post #100
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…

Bear with me here. Rushed and poorly articulated post incoming... In the broadest sense, generative AI helps achieve the same goals that copyleft licences aim for. A future where software isn't locked away in proprietary blobs and users are empowered to create, combine and modify software that they use. Copyleft uses IP law against itself to push people to share their work. Generative AI aims to assist in writing (or…

The obvious difference is that copyleft is voluntary, while having your art style stolen isn't.

If an artist approached a software developer, created a painting of them using their Mac, and said "There, I've done your job for you" you'd think they were an idiot.

This is the same from the other side. The inability to understand why that's a realistic analogy does not change the fact that it is.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#116

Post by nolist_policy »

forgotusername6 wrote: post #99
schleck8 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome and Chromium are virtually identical except for Google services, which aren't required to do anything with the browser except for installing Chrome extensions that can alternatively be sideloaded, so this is nitpicking.

Tangential, but I tried to build chromium the other day but stopped when it said it required access to Google cloud platform to actually build it. If something requires a proprietary build system, does it matter that it's open source?

That is not true. See every distribution packaging chromium.

In particular, this package[1] by openSUSE builds completely offline. Many other distributions require packages to build offline.

[1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/network:chromium/chr...

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#117

Post by gregorvand »

Not trying to knock the progress here, impressive. As a drummer, 'drum solo' is about as boring as it gets and some weird interspersing sounds. So, it depends on the intended audience.

FWIW the sound effects also are not 'realistic' to my ear, at the moment.

But again, the progress is huge, well done!

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#118

Post by llm_trw »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #115
andybak wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear with me here. Rushed and poorly articulated post incoming... In the broadest sense, generative AI helps achieve the same goals that copyleft licences aim for. A future where software isn't locked away in proprietary blobs and users are empowered to create, combine and modify software that they use. Copyleft uses IP law against itself to push people to share their work. Generative AI aims to assist in writing (or…

The obvious difference is that copyleft is voluntary, while having your art style stolen isn't. If an artist approached a software developer, created a painting of them using their Mac, and said "There, I've done your job for you" you'd think they were an idiot. This is the same from the other side. The inability to understand why that's a realistic analogy does not change the fact that it is.

> The obvious difference is that copyleft is voluntary, while having your art style stolen isn't.

What a curious type of theft where the author keeps their art and I get different art.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#119

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Ukv wrote: post #105
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…

> 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…

None of those arguments make sense. The output of AI absolutely does supersede the objects of the original creation. If it didn't, artists wouldn't care that they were no longer able to make a living.

Substantiality of code does not apply to substantiality of style. What's being copied is look and feel, which is very much protected by copyright.

The copying clearly is necessary for the purpose. No copying, no model. The fact that the copying is then compressed after ingestion doesn't change the fact that it's necessary for the modelling process.

Last point - see first point.

IANAL, but if I was a lawyer I'd be referring back to look and feel cases. It's the essence of an artist's look and feel that's being duplicated and used for commercial gain without a license.

That's true whether it's one artist - which it can be, with added training - or thousands.

Essentially what MJ etc do is curate a library of looks and feels, and charge money for access.

It's a little more subtle than copying fixed objects, but the principle remains the same - original work is being copied and resold.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#120

Post by toxik »

gregorvand wrote: post #117

Not trying to knock the progress here, impressive. As a drummer, 'drum solo' is about as boring as it gets and some weird interspersing sounds. So, it depends on the intended audience. FWIW the sound effects also are not 'realistic' to my ear, at the moment. But again, the progress is huge, well done!

Yeah the drum solo really highlights how badly the model missed the point in a drum solo. I'm not a drummer, but this is just not pleasing to hear. Sounds like somebody randomly banging drums more or less in tempo.

It does okay with muzak-type things though, which I guess tracks with my expectations.

Post reply on HN