151–160 of 249 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Website works fine on safari too, I didn’t notice any issues
Same, I wonder what issue they thought they had...
Every researcher I know in the audio domain uses Chrome for exactly that reason. The alternative would be not to use the standard HTML audio tag which would be ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Wow. I’m guessing it’s generating MIDI or something rather than synthesizing audio from scratch? Even so, the quality of the score is leaps and bounds better than any of the long-form audio on the Stable Audio demo page (either Stable Audio itself or the other models). The audio model outputs seem to take a sequence of 1 to 3 chords, add a barebones melody on top, and basically loop this over and over. When they devi…
Music without changes is boring. I enjoyed the much less stable results of OpenAI's JuleBox (2021?) more than any music AI to come since. Their sound quality is better but they only seem to produce one monotonous texture at a time.
> 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"?
As with Stable Diffusion, text prompting will be the least controllable way to get useful output with this model. I can easily imagine midi being used as an input with control net to essentially get a neural synthesizer.
Yes. Since working on my AI melodies project ( https://www.melodies.ai/ ) two years ago, I've been saying that producing a high-quality, finalized song from text won't be feasible or even desirable for a while, and it's better to focus on using AI in various aspects of music making that support the artist's process.
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…
This is contrary to the goals of the Free Software movement - and also why Free Software people were the first to complain about all the copying going on. One of the things Generative AI is really good at is plagiarism - i.e. taking someone else's work and "rewriting it" in different words. If that's fair use, then copyleft is functionally useless.
It's important to keep in mind the difference between violating the letter of the law and opposing the business interests of the people who wrote the law. Copyleft and share-alike clauses have the intention of getting in the way of copyright as an institution, but it also relies on copyright to work, which is why the clauses have power even though they violate the spirit of copyright. Generative AI might violate the letter of the law, but it's very much in the spirit of what the law wants.
[0] Cory Doctorow: "Intellectual property is any law that allows you to dictate the conduct of your competitors"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 anyt…
You know the word "license" has multiple, dissimilar meanings, right?