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

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#181

Post by emadm »

emadm wrote: post #180

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.

Particularly interesting with the scaled up version of https://www.text-description-to-speech.com

Do try https://www.stableaudio.com for rights licensed model you can use commercially.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#182

Post by JAlexoid »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #56
deely3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. kill open source ML -> decrease speed of improvements for some open source ML

Sadly not. Making something illegal has social effects, not just legal effects. I’ve grown tired of being verbally spit on for books3. One lovely fellow even said that he hoped my daughter grows up resenting me for it. It being legal is the only guard against that kind of thing. People will still be angry, but they won’t be so numerous. Right now everyone outside of AI almost universally despises the way AI is traine…

> Right now everyone outside of AI almost universally despises the way AI is trained.

I don't agree with this. Most people don't care at all, and at best people would argue about some form of compensation.

Saying "everyone" is unsubstantiated.

I mean... "Everyone was angry at Napster" at the same time "everyone is angry at the MPAA/RIAA"

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#183

Post by emadm »

l33tman wrote: post #150
zone411 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Emad hinted here on HN the last time this was discussed that they were experimenting with exactly that. It will come, by them or by someone else quickly. Text-prompting is just a very coarse tool to quickly get some base to stand on, ControlNet is where the human creativity again enters.

Yeah, we build ComfyUI so you can imagine what is coming soon around that.

Need to add more stuff to my Soundcloud https://on.soundcloud.com/XrqNb

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#184

Post by emadm »

shon wrote: post #23
andrewstuart wrote: post #11

I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as though all the music licensing lawyers in the USA all cried out at once.

Perhaps the disturbance you feel is actually the RIAA moving their Death Star into firing range of Stability.ai

stableaudio.com is fully licensed, music is an interesting area

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/stability-ai-launches...

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#185

Post by ever1337 »

slicerdicer1 wrote: post #114

obviously someone shadowy and non-corporate (eg. an artist) just needs to come out and make a model which includes promptable artist/producer/singer/instrumentalist/song metadata. describing music without referring to musicians is so clunky because music is never labelled well. of course saying "disco house with funk bass and soulful vocals, uplifting" is going to be bland. Saying "disco house with nile rodgers rhyth…

so this model can only ever understand music which is classified, described, labelled, standardized. and recombine those. sounds boring, sounds like the opposite of what (I would like to believe) people listen to music for, outside of a corporate stock audio context.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#186

Post by Hoasi »

Joeri wrote: post #128
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…

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 beh…

> I would argue the current system of copyright has been largely harmful to creativity for a long time now

I'd love to hear that argument.

How has the current system of copyright been harmful to creativity?

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#187

Post by JAlexoid »

numpad0 wrote: post #74
romanzubenko wrote: post #6

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.

It's crazy that nobody cares. It seems to me that ML hype trends focus on denying skills and disproving creativity by denoising randoms into what are indistinguishable from human generation, and to me this whole chain of negatives don't seem to have proven its worth.

LLMs allow people without certain skills to be creative in forms of art that are inaccessible to them.

With Dalee - I can get an image of something I have in my head, without investing into watching hundreds of hours of Bob Ross(which I do anyway)

With audio generators - I can produce music that is in my head, without learning how to play an instrument or paying someone to do it. I have to arrange it correctly, but I can put out a techno track without spending years in learning the intricacies.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#188

Post by sillysaurusx »

chasing wrote: post #175
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.

> 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 ro…

"Ethical" in this case is a matter of opinion. The whole point of copyright was to promote useful sciences and arts. It’s in the US constitution. You don’t get to control your work out of some sense of fairness, but rather because it’s better for the society you live in.

As an ML researcher, no, there’s basically no way to make progress without the data. Not in comparison with billion dollar corporations that can throw money at the licensing problem. Synthetic data is still a pipe dream, and arguably still a copyright violation according to you, since traditional models generate such data.

To believe that this problem will just go away or that we can find some way around it is to close one’s eyes and shout "la la la, not listening." If you want to kill open source AI, that’s fine, but do it with eyes open.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#189

Post by zamadatix »

ttul wrote: post #51

I find it interesting that they are releasing the code and lovely instructions for training, but no model. They are almost begging anonymous folks to hook the data loader up to an Apple Music account and go nuts. Not that I am suggesting anyone do that.

Speculatively it might have been part of an agreement with they were given the licensed stock audio library from AudioSparx to train on they wouldn't redistribute the resulting model.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#190

Post by zamadatix »

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…

Where was this quote pulled from? I can't find it in the site, paper, or code repo readmes for some reason. Did the HN link get changed?
Post reply on HN