The 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.
I think "song" should go in quotes
Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
121–130 of 335 posts
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#122Anyone 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.
>and AI not yet capable of matching even average human content (much less pro level)
Yeah this is not true. Sota Text, Image generation is well above average baselines. You can certainly generate professional level art on Midjourney
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#123Earlier 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…
Currently, yes, available compute power @ home does indeed seem like a limitation. Whether that remains true going forward seems a little unclear to me.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#124This is Spotify's route to profitability - the Netflix model of generating their own "content" (/music), and not having to pay the labels. Premium plans for us music nerds who want a human at the other end, regular plans for plebs who just want to fill the silence with something agreeable.
Although I think AI-generated and AI-augmented (using voice cloning, etc.) artists are a given, for Spotify to stop paying labels they'd have to be able to remove all non-Spotify content from their streaming catalog. That doesn't seem like a possibility in our lifetimes. (Also, Spotify hasn't even been able to build a sustainable business on podcasts, which they copy to their closed platform for free.) It's an intere…
Their current pay structure is royalties, i.e. per listen. If they can route their audience to mostly AI generated content in time (say, 5-10 year transition), and it's just as good for most people, then they can negotiate much lower prices with the labels. We all grumble about Netflix being full of junk, but most of us are still subscribers, despite a sparse catalog of big name movies.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#125Anyone 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 cl…
Yep, every time technology shifts, reputation systems shift in response.
This goes all the way back to yellow news with newspapers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#126Anyone 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 cl…
I don't agree. With ML tools it is possible to make sweeping changes to images and text that are often impossible to detect.
combined with the centralisation of most online activities, large players could alter the past.
Imagine facebook decides to subtly change every public post and comment to show some particular person or cause in a better light.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#127Incoming strike by American Federation of Musicians in 3, 2, 1....
How many jobs would this thing take away? One of the biggest time consuming in any video production is post production audio including background music, audio, Foley etc. This will automate almost of it!
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> “Noncommercial art” is not a thing in the eyes of the law
The definition of “NonCommercial”, the oddly capitalized term of art in the license, is not a matter of general law, it is a matter of the license, which defines it as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.”
> Even if you don’t intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial.
Even if you do make money, if the use is “not primarily intended” for that purpose, it is "NonCommercial" in the terms of the license.
> 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.
It has the filesharing term in it because it permits that particular exchange-of-value as a primary purpose.
> Even a “no monetization” clause would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only"
How would a clause that prohibits monetization entirely be less onerous than one which prohibits it only as the primary intent of use?
> it’d at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices.
It is legal to use it for that purpose (in a for-profit enterprise, I suppose, one might make an argument that any activity was ultimately primarily directed at “commercial advantage”, but in a government or many nonprofit environments, that wouldn’t be the case.)
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#129Anyone 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.
Yes, this is one of my concerns about all of this. The danger is real.
Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Even before streaming, You never "owned" any music legally [1], you merely owned a physical copy of a performance[3] of a song, that in no way gives you the right to make derivative works [2] automatically. Also it doesn't really matter on what the law says, RIAA in the last iteration, relied on the fact it you would rather pay a fine than be able to afford expensive lawyers to fight the specifics out in court on ave…
> that in no way gives you the right to make derivative works
True, but only because you have that right anyway. I can do anything I like with copyrighted content I legally possess, as long as I don't distribute the results of my efforts.