Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

Post by lm28469 » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 6:56 PM UTC

gilmore606 wrote: post #72

Pannoniae wrote: post #69

"generating new music in the style of existing music" will probably be a huge field soon. I can't wait for it to happen, it's a low-cost way of producing even more music to listen to.

> I can't wait for it to happen, it's a low-cost way of producing even more music to listen to. I can't really understand this. I'm a DJ and a huge music nerd, and I spend a lot of time every week discovering new music from the past 100 years and all over the world, and I'm constantly struck by _how much of it there is_. I've spent weeks just digging through psych-funk records from West Africa from the 1970s. How can…

Post by lm28469 » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 6:57 PM UTC

emporas wrote: post #101

gilmore606 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't wait for it to happen, it's a low-cost way of producing even more music to listen to. I can't really understand this. I'm a DJ and a huge music nerd, and I spend a lot of time every week discovering new music from the past 100 years and all over the world, and I'm constantly struck by _how much of it there is_. I've spent weeks just digging through psych-funk records from West Africa from the 1970s. How can…

There is a lot of human music for sure, great music from all eras, but just the other day i generated a song which was pure crystal harp. So, how many songs of crystal harp are out there? 1000 all n all? 10.000 maybe? Now i can generate one thousand crystal harp songs per day.

Post by Blahah » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #112

dragonwriter wrote: post #61

Earlier 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…

Post by mesebrec » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:05 PM UTC

RobotToaster wrote: post #93

CC-BY-NC Isn't an open source licence, it violates point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd/

Post by schleck8 » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:08 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #27

gavman wrote: post #13

> MusicGen, which was trained with Meta-owned and specifically licensed music, generates music from text-based user inputs, while AudioGen, which was trained on public sound effects, generates audio from text-based user inputs. Meta is really clearly trying to differentiate themselves from OpenAI here. Open source + driving home "we don't use data we haven't paid for / don't own".

This is purely a function of everyone remembering the RIAA's decade-long campaign to prevent people from taking the music they had rightfully stolen. As far as I'm aware LLaMA was trained on "publicly available data"[0], not "licensed data". Furthermore, MusicGen's weights are licensed CC-BY-NC, which is effectively a nonlicense as there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator[1]. This is not only…