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

191–200 of 249 posts

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#191

Post by turnsout »

grey8 wrote: post #94
ShamelessC wrote: post #3

So there aren't public weights, is that right? Having trouble finding anything that says one way or the other. edit: Oh okay, didn't realize this was somehow a controversial comment to make. It would have been great if you had answered the question before downvoting but that's fine I suppose.

Nope. They did release code for training, inference and fine tuning, but no datasets or weights. See https://github.com/Stability-AI/stable-audio-tools

Wonder if it's an IP issue. They don't want every record label coming after them.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#192

Post by nprateem »

The problem with music generation is difficulty in editing. Photos and text can be easily edited, but music can't be. Either the piece needs to be MIDI, with relevant parameterisation of instruments, or a UI creating that allows segments of the audio to be reworked like in-painting.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#193

Post by zamadatix »

prmoustache wrote: post #64
popalchemist wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever heard of an MVP?

That would be pertinent if it wasn't just a static web page with just text and some audio files to be played.

Reading about it, that ironically seems to be the exact problem Safari has. I mean the page "works" in Safari it's just you get these really random delays to the start of some of the sounds with all sorts of web discussion threads saying different ways to mitigate it on different platforms. I don't really fault them for having the goal to publish a paper and go the extra bit to make a friendly but imperfect webpage instead of being website creators who happen to publish papers on the side.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#194

Post by ARandomerDude »

a_vanderbilt wrote: post #166
ImprobableTruth wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Person A gets hired to write the software that is the company's actual product.

Person B gets hired to observe Person A working, check email, and be the audio output buffer for Jira.

Person B says "I built this."

That's dishonesty no matter what the titles are or how important the emails were.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#195

Post by CaptainFever »

kmeisthax wrote: post #159
andybak wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear with me here. Rushed and poorly articulated post incoming... In the broadest sense, generative AI helps achieve the same goals that copyleft licences aim for. A future where software isn't locked away in proprietary blobs and users are empowered to create, combine and modify software that they use. Copyleft uses IP law against itself to push people to share their work. Generative AI aims to assist in writing (or…

The majority of AI models out there (at least by popularity / capability) are proprietary; with weights and even model architectures that are treated as trade secret. Instead of having human-written music and movies that you legally can't copy, but practically can; you now have slop-generating models that live on a cloud server you have no control over. Artists and programmers who want to actually publish something -…

Is FSF's stance on AI actually clear? I thought they were just upset it was made by Microsoft.

Creative Commons has been fairly pro-AI -- they have been quite balanced, actually, but they do say that opt-in is not acceptable, it should be opt-out at most. EFF is fairly pro AI too -- at least, against using copyright to legislate against it.

You shouldn't discount progress in the open model ecosystem. You can sort of pirate ChatGPT by fine tuning on its responses, there's GPU sharing initiatives like Stable Horde, there's TabbyML which works very well nowadays, and Stable Diffusion is still the most advanced way of generating images. There's very much of an anti-IP spirit going on there, which is a good thing -- it's what copyleft is there for in sprit, isn't it?

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#196

Post by UncleEntity »

JAlexoid wrote: post #171
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ironically, Picasso was notorious for copying other artist's 'look and feel'...

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#197

Post by JoshTriplett »

Ukv wrote: post #105
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…

> 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…

> "many other things" has included, for example, Google Books scanning millions of in-copyright books, storing internally them in full, and making snippets available.

That succeeds on a different part of the four-factor test, the degree to which it competes with / affects the market for the original.

Google Books is not automatically producing new books derived from their copies that compete with the original books.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#198

Post by ShamelessC »

turnsout wrote: post #191
grey8 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. They did release code for training, inference and fine tuning, but no datasets or weights. See https://github.com/Stability-AI/stable-audio-tools

Wonder if it's an IP issue. They don't want every record label coming after them.

Yeah that tracks.

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#199

Post by kouteiheika »

emadm wrote: post #184
shon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Serious question, I'd genuinely like to know - why?

You didn't license the images when training Stable Diffusion, and yet you did for Stable Audio? In both cases the training should either be fair use and legal without any licensing, or be infringing and need licensing. Why is audio different than images? Am I missing something here?

Re: Stable-Audio-Demo

#200

Post by gcanko »

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

There has to be a solution for the copyright roadbloacks that companies encounter when training models. I see it no different than an artist creating music which is influenced by the music the artist has been listening throughout his whole life, fundementally it's the exact same thing. You cannot create music or art in general in a vacuum
Post reply on HN