Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

Post by voz_ » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:43 PM UTC

JeremyNT wrote: post #99

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".

The fact that Meta is able to lie and call their restrictive licensing open source is nearly as misleading as "OpenAI." We need to do better than to repeat these claims uncritically. The weight licenses are not "open source" by any useful definition, and we should not give Meta kudos for their misleading PR (especially considering that they almost surely ignored any copyright when training these things - rules for th…

Post by naillo » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

Post by pessimizer » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #114

bottlepalm wrote: post #102

Anyone feel like with the flood of AI generated content there's a risk of the past being 'erased'. Like in 10 years we won't be able to tell if any information from the past is real or fake - sounds, pictures, videos, etc.. Like we need to start cryptographically signing all content now if there's any hope of being able to verify it as 'real' 10 years from now.

No. We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. For a long time now, we've had to separate out what's credible from what's bullshit. Fortunately, it's pretty simple in real life. We have certain publications and sources we trust, whether they're the NYT or a respected industry blog. We know they take accurate reporting seriously, fire journalists who are caught fabricating things, etc. If we see a cl…

Post by pschuegr » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:55 PM UTC

naillo wrote: post #195

munificent wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the goal of our human pursuit is to advance our technologies and systems to the point we can all live carefree lives where the focus of our pursuits is self defined. Agreed! > the future should not be about preserving some peoples rights to limit our collective advancements over their personal wants. Systems that don't allow people to extract value from the hard work they put into collective advancement do not seem…

> Systems that don't allow people to extract value from the hard work they put into collective advancement [...] one's going to spend all day making candy and put it in the "free candy" bowl On the other hand this is what researchers do all day every day. PhDs and professors work for the common good and get barely any pay in return. Maybe the future model in art and music is more like the academic researcher.

Post by Tao3300 » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 7:57 PM UTC

kmeisthax wrote: post #81

eropple wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 How do you figure? Have you never just...made stuff to make stuff?

In copyright law the use of the work itself is considered a commercial benefit, so "noncommercial use" is an oxymoron. Consider these situations: - If I use AudioCraft to post freely-downloadable tracks on my SoundCloud, I still get the benefit of having a large audio catalog in my name, even if I'm not selling the individual tracks. I could later compose tracks on my own and ride off the exposure I got from posting…