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

161–170 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#161

Post by Filligree »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #109
sillysaurusx wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Proposal: revenue from Generative AI should be taxed 10% for an international endowment for the arts. In exchange, copyright claims are settled.

With a minimum rate, such that no-one can pretend they’re getting no income from it.

We might apply that as a $5000 or so surcharge on AI accelerators capable of running the models, such as the 4090.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#162

Post by navjack27 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #88
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…

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting out code that violates copyright, the vast majority of the outputs do not. Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. There’s also the mor…

Dalle on Bing is happy to generate Mario and Luigi and Sonic and basically everybody from everybody without using crafty language so I'm unsure of what you're talking about.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#163

Post by JAlexoid »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #88
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…

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting out code that violates copyright, the vast majority of the outputs do not. Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. There’s also the mor…

It would be interesting to see if courts agree that training+transforming = copying.

If I paint a picture inspired by Starry Night(Van Gogh) - does that inherently infringe on the original? I looked at that painting, learned the characteristics, looked at other similar paintings and painted my own. I basically trained my brain. (and I mean the copyright, not the individual physical painting)

And I mean cases where I am not intentionally trying to recreate the original, but doing a derivative(aka inspired) work.

Because it's already settled that recreating the original from memory will infringe on copyright.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#164

Post by redman25 »

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!

I think I was more disappointed by the music samples not having any transitions. Most songs have key changes and percussion turnovers.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#165

Post by pk-protect-ai »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #44
doctorpangloss wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For generative models, if the model authors do not publish the architecture of their model; and, the model uses a transformation from text to another kind of media; you can assume that they have delegated some part of their model to a text encoder or similar feature which is trained on data that they do not have an express license to. Even for rightsholders with tens of millions to hundreds of millions of library ite…

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.

I would say that GPT-3 and its successors have nothing to do with open source, and if OpenAI uses open source as a shield, then we are all doomed. I would distance myself and any open source projects from involvement in OpenAI court cases as far as possible. Yes, they have delivered some open source models, but not all of them. Their defense must revolve around fair use and purchased content if they use books and materials that were never freely available. It should be permissible to purchase a book or other materials once and use them for the training of an unlimited number of models without incurring licensing fees.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#166

Post by a_vanderbilt »

ImprobableTruth wrote: post #131
shon wrote: post #35

Interestingly, Ed Newton-Rex, the person hired to build Stable Audio, quit shortly after it was released due to concerns around copyright and the training data being used. He’s since founded https://www.fairlytrained.org/ Reference: https://x.com/ednewtonrex

Calling him "the person hired to build Stable Audio" seems a bit misleading? He was in a executive position (VP of product for Stability's audio group). An important position, but "person hired to build" to me evokes the image of lead developer/researcher. I think that also helps in understanding his departure, since he's a founder with a music background.

It isn't unusual for those in leadership positions to use such phrasing when talking about projects and products. It's not a "taking credit" from the engineers sort of thing, but rather about the leadership of the engineers.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#167

Post by JAlexoid »

raphman wrote: post #149
sillysaurusx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting out code that violates copyright, the vast majority of the outputs do not. Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. There’s also the mor…

> Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. What I don't understand (as a European with little knowledge of court decisions on fair use): with the same reasoning you might make software piracy a case of 'fair use', no? You take stuff someone else wrote - without their consent - and use it to create something new. The output (e.g. the artwork you create with Photoshop) is…

> make software piracy a case of 'fair use'

That's not a good example. Making a copy of a record you own(as an example ripping a audio CD to MP3) is absolutely fair use. Giving your video game to your neighbor to play - that's also fair use.

Fair use is limited when it comes to transformative/derivative work. Similar laws are in place all over the world, just in US some of those come from case law.

> With software, it seems clear that the act of taking something you do not have the rights for and using it for personal (financial) gain is not covered by fair use.

> Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works?

That's not a good analogy. The argument, that is not settled yet, is that a model doesn't contain enough copyrightable material to produce an infringing output.

Take your software example - you legally acquire Civ6, you play Civ6, you learn the concepts and the visuals of Civ6... then you take that knowledge and create a game that is similar to Civ6. If you're a copyright maximalist - then you would say that creating any games that mimic Civ6 by people who have played Civ6 is copyright infringement. Legally there are definitely lower limits to copyright - like no one owns the copyright to the phrase "Once upon a time", but there may be a copyright on "In a galaxy far far away".

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#168

Post by Ukv »

raphman wrote: post #149
sillysaurusx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not so clear cut. Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. As much as people love to cite ChatGPT spitting out code that violates copyright, the vast majority of the outputs do not. Those that do, are quickly clamped down on — you’ll find it hard to get Dalle to generate an image of anything Nintendo related, unless you’re using crafty language. There’s also the mor…

> Many lawyers believe all that matters is whether the output of the model is infringing. What I don't understand (as a European with little knowledge of court decisions on fair use): with the same reasoning you might make software piracy a case of 'fair use', no? You take stuff someone else wrote - without their consent - and use it to create something new. The output (e.g. the artwork you create with Photoshop) is…

> Why can OpenAI steal copyrighted content to create transformative works but I cannot steal Photoshop to create transformative works? What am I missing?

If Photoshop was hosted online by Adobe, you would be free to do so. It's copyrighted, but you'd have an implied license to use it by the fact it's being made available to you to download. Same reason search engines can save and present cached snapshots of a website (Field v. Google).

In other situations (e.g: downloading from an unofficial source) you're right that private copying is (in the US) still prima facie copyright infringement. However, when considering a fair use defense, courts do take the distinction into strong consideration: "verbatim intermediate copying has consistently been upheld as fair use if the copy is ‘not reveal[ed] . . . to the public.’" (Authors Guild v. Google)

If you were using Photoshop in some transformative way that gives it new purpose (e.g: documenting the evolution of software UIs, rather than just making a photo with it as designed) then you may* be able to get away with downloading it from unofficial sources via a fair use defense.

*: (this is not legal advice)

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#169

Post by JAlexoid »

frabcus wrote: post #133
fenomas wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where this argument falls down for me is that "use" w.r.t. copyright means copying, and neither AI models nor their outputs include any material copied from the training data, in any usual sense. (Of course the inputs are copied during training, but those copies seem clearly ephemeral.) Genuinely curious: for anyone who thinks AI obviously violates copyright, how do you resolve this? E.g. do you think the violation h…

Personally I think trained models are derived works of all the training data. Just like a translation of a book is a derived works of the original. Or a binary compiled output is a derived works of some source code.

You're trying to use words without the legal context here. The legal definition of words isn't 1-1 wit our colloquial usage.

Translation of a book is non-transformative and retains the original author's artistic expression.

As a counter example - if you write an essay about Picasso's Guernica painting, it is derivative according to our colloquial use of the term, but legally it's an original work.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#170

Post by haswell »

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…

> Art by its social nature is always derivative, I can use diffusion models to create uncontestably original imagery

How are you defining “uncontestably original” here?

The output could not exist if not for the training set used to train the model. While the process of deriving the end result is different than the one humans use when creating artwork, the end result is still derived from other works, and the degree of originality is a difference of degree, not of kind when compared to human output. (I acknowledge that the AI tool is enabled by a different process than the one humans use, but I’m not sure that a change in process changes the derivative nature of all subsequent output).

As a thought experiment, imagine that assuming we survive, after another million years of human evolution, our brains can process imagery at the scale of generative AI models, and can produce derivative output taking into account more influences than any human could even begin to approach with our 2024 brains.

Is the output no longer derivative?

Now consider the future human’s interpretation of the work vs. the 2024 human’s interpretation of the work. “I’ve never seen anything like this”, says the 2024 human. “The influences from 5 billion artists over time are clear in this piece” says the future human.

The fundamental question is: on what basis is the output of an AI model original? What are the criterion for originality?

Post reply on HN