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

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#171

Post by JAlexoid »

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.…

> What's being copied is _look and feel_, which is very much protected by copyright.

If that were the case, no one would be able to paint any cubist paintings. (Picasso estate would own the copyright, to this day)

It's not that clear cut, there are a lot of nuances.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#172

Post by squeaky-clean »

schleck8 wrote: post #78
Maxion wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Chrome and Chromium are virtually identical except for Google services, which aren't required to do anything with the browser except for installing Chrome extensions that can alternatively be sideloaded, so this is nitpicking.

Don't forget media DRM built into Chrome but not Chromium.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#173

Post by thuuuomas »

fenomas wrote: post #135
frabcus wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wikipedia: > In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of ... the underlying work A trained model fails that on two counts, doesn't it? Both the "includes" part, and the fact that a model is itself not an expressive work of authorship.

Curating training data is an exercise in editorial judgement.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#174

Post by JAlexoid »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #82
viraptor wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "How much of the work will you use?" - All of it That depends on the interpretation of "use", and it would be interesting to read what lawyers think. You learned the language largely from speech and copyrighted works. (All the stories, books, movies, etc. you ever read/heard) When you wrote this comment did you use all of them for that purpose? Is the case of AI different? To be clear that's a rhetorical question -…

Principles applied to human brains are not automatically applicable to AI training. To the best of my knowledge, there's no particular law that says a human brain is exempt from copyright, but it empirically is, because the alternative would be utterly unreasonable. No such exemption exists for AI training, nor should it. Ideas/works/etc literally live rent-free in your head. That doesn't mean they should live rent-f…

> To the best of my knowledge, there's no particular law that says a human brain is exempt from copyright, but it empirically is, because the alternative would be utterly unreasonable.

Human brain most definitely is not exempt. If you read Lord of the Rings and then write down a new book, with the same characters and same story line - that's plain copying(lookup the etymology of the verb to copy). If you look at a painting and paint a very similar painting - that's still copying.

Human brains are the reason we have copyright. Your recital of passages from any copyrighted book would violate the copyright, if not for fair use doctrine. And it has nothing to do with whether you do it yourself, or have a TTS engine produce the sound.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#175

Post by chasing »

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.

> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML.

This is another one of those “well if you treat the people fairly it causes problems” sort of arguments. And: Sorry. If you want to do this you have to figure out how to do it ethically.

There are all sorts of situations where research would go much faster if we behaved unethically or illegally. Medicine, for example. Or shooting people in rockets to Mars. But we can’t live in a society where we harm people in the name of progress.

Everyone in AI is super smart — I’m sure they can chin-scratch and figure out a way to make progress while respecting the people whose work they need to power these tools. Those incapable of this are either lazy, predatory, or not that smart.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#176

Post by JAlexoid »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #58
marcyb5st wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a license that states: if you use this data for ML training you must open source model weights and architecture?

It’s deeper than that. The basis of licensing is copyright. If the upcoming court cases rule in OpenAI’s favor, you won’t be able to apply copyright to training data. Which means you can’t license it. Or rather, you can, but everyone is free to ignore you. A license without teeth is no license at all. The GPL is only relevant because it’s enforceable in court. I’m sure some countries will try the licensing route thou…

>The GPL is only relevant because it’s enforceable in court.

The irony of GPL, is that it's validity with respect to users is only now tested in court.

https://www.dlapiper.com/en/insights/publications/2024/01/sf...

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#177

Post by emadm »

prmoustache wrote: post #60
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

Not that it would have stopped the company for doing it anyway, but couldn't he think about that before working from them? Or did he needed that as it i part of the business model of his certfications?

It's a complex topic and perceptions change.

Ed still likes Stability, especially as we fully trained stable audio on rights licensed data (bit different in audio to other media types), offer opt out of datasets etc.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#178

Post by emadm »

reissbaker wrote: post #7

This is incredibly good compared to SOTA music models (MusicGen, MusicLM). It looks like there's also a product page where you can subscribe to use it, similar to Midjourney: https://www.stableaudio.com/ Sadly it's not open-weight and it doesn't look like there's an API (again like Midjourney): you subscribe monthly to generate audio in their UI, rather than having something developers can integrate or wrap.

There is a CC licensed version soon plus API.

Models are advancing very fast, will be quite the year for music.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#179

Post by JAlexoid »

iamsaitam wrote: post #76
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.

The point should be to kill training on unlicensed material. There needs to be regulation and tools to identify what was the training data. But as always, first comes the siphoning part, the massive extraction of value, then when the damage is done there will be the slow moving reparations and conservationism.

Agreed. And every software engineer writing code should pay 10% of their salary to the publishers of the books that they learned their programming skills from.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#180

Post by emadm »

This is part of a paper on the prior version of the model: https://x.com/stableaudio/status/1755558334797685089?s=20

https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04825

Which outperforms similar music models.

The pace is accelerating and even better ones are coming with far greater cohesion and... stuff. Will be quite the year for music.

Post reply on HN