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

121–130 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#121

Post by wnkrshm »

PeterStuer wrote: post #113

"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 o…

But the social nature of art also means that humans give the originator and their influences credit - of course not the entire chain but at least the nearest neighbours of influence. While a user of a diffusion generator does not even know the influences unless specifically asked for.

Shoulders of giants as a service.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#122

Post by m463 »

Maxion wrote: post #68
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"?

Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. Best not to confuse the two.

I found this article to explain it well:

https://www.lifewire.com/chromium-and-chrome-differences-417...

and there is a further ungoogled-chromium:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungoogled-chromium

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#123

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

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!

As a drummer, the 'drum solo` was surprisingly interesting to listen to, if you consider it happening over a stable 4/4 pulse. The random-but-not-quite nature of the part makes for very unconventional rhythmic patterns. I'd like to be able to syncopate like this on the spot.

Don't ask me to transcribe it.

Tempo consistency is great. Extraneous noises and random cymbal tails show the deficiency of the model though.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#124

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

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…

> But it would take legislation to enforce that.

Absolutely true. That's the end game and we should be working toward influencing that. It's within our power.

> I’ve spoken with a few lawyers who believe OpenAI is on solid legal footing

No one knows anything, this is too novel, and even if OpenAI gets some fair use ruling, it will be inequitable and legislation is inevitable. OpenAI is between a rock and a hard place here. If you read the basis for fair use and give each aspect serious consideration, as a judge should do, I can't see it passing fair use muster. It's not a case of simply reproducing work, which in unclear here, it's the negative effect on copyright holders, and that effect is undeniable.

> All outcomes suck.

I don't think so. It's possible to fashion something equitable, but people other than the corporations have to get involved.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#125

Post by Ukv »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #119
Ukv wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> 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.

The question for transformative nature is whether it merely supersedes or instead adds something new. E.G: Google translate was trained on books/documents translated by human translators and may in part displace that need, but adds new value in on-demand translation of arbitrary text - which the static works it was trained on did not provide.

> Substantiality of code does not apply to substantiality of style.

I'm not certain what you're saying here.

> The copying clearly is necessary for the purpose. No copying, no model.

Which, for the substantiality factor, works in favor of the model developers.

> It's the essence of an artist's look and feel that's being duplicated and used for commercial gain without a license.

Copyright protects works fixed in a tangible medium, not ideas in someone's head. It would protect a work's look/appearance (which can be an issue for AI when overfitting causes outputs that are substantially similar to a protected work), but not style or "an artist's look and feel".

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#127

Post by berkes »

leodriesch wrote: post #104
berkes wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm too.

But I still see no evidence that this keeps improving and not plateauing at some (current?) level.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#128

Post by Joeri »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #79
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.

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…

Just because something is not copyrightable doesn’t automatically mean it must be disclosed. If weights aren’t copyrightable (and I don’t think they should be, as the weights are not a human creation), commercial AI’s just get locked behind API barriers, with terms of usage that forbid cloning. Copyright then never enters the picture, unless weights get leaked.

Whether or not that’s equitable is in the eye of the beholder. Copyright is an artificial construct, not a natural law. There is nothing that says we must have it, or we must have it in its current form, and I would argue the current system of copyright has been largely harmful to creativity for a long time now. One of the most damning statements I’ve read in this thread about the current copyright system is how there’s simply not enough unlicensed content to train models on. That is the bed that the copyright-holding corporations have made for themselves by lobbying to extend copyright to a century, and it all but assured the current situation.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#129

Post by seydor »

alacritas0 wrote: post #19

this can produce some pretty disturbing, but interesting music using the prompt "energetic music, violin, voice, orchestra, piano, minimalism, john adams, nixon in china": https://www.stableaudio.com/1/share/953f079e-d704-4138-904c-...

Finally, some music from the future
Post reply on HN