Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 335 posts

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#201

Post by Tao3300 »

elondaits wrote: post #184
stale2002 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a weird comment. Do you think that non commercial use simply doesn't exist or something? Because non commercial use isn't some crazy concept. It is a well established one, that doesnt disclude literally everything. Also, you are ignoring the idea that Facebook will almost certainly not sue anyone for using this for any reason, except possibly Google or Apple. So if you aren't literally one of those companies…

The issue with “non commercial” is that no, it’s not well established. Licenses with a NC clause are so problematic to be practically useless. If you just want to use something at home privately you don’t need a CC license… a CC license is for use and redistribution. http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4559

I miss that blog. It was a little crazy and the comments were a flame war shitshow, but man it was fun to read sometimes. Even if I vehemently disagreed, it got me thinking.

Whatever happened to esr? Did he just get too paranoid and clam up?

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#202

Post by cpill »

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.

yeah, but they also get to work on what they love as opposed to what ever the corporate interest currently is. it's rare you get paid will for doing what you love i.e. music, teaching, designing hand bags etc

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#204

Post by crazygringo »

pessimizer wrote: post #196
crazygringo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We've had photo and audio manipulation for many decades now. We haven't been able to generate 1,000 different forged variants of the same speech in a day before. > We have certain publications and sources we trust, whether they're the NYT or a respected industry blog. We can't even be sure that most of these aren't changing old stories, unless we notice and check archive.org, and they haven't had them deleted from…

> but the reason nobody else does is because no one else wants to. They want to be free to change old stories.

You're wildly assuming a motive with zero evidence.

No, the reason companies aren't building blockchain verification of their stories is simply because it's expensive and complicated to do, for literally zero commercial benefit.

Archive.org already will prove any difference to you, and it's much easier to use/verify than any blockchain technology.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#205

Post by Filligree »

voz_ wrote: post #192
JeremyNT wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you chill? It’s def open source

So I can build a business on it, then?

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#206

Post by zztop44 »

pschuegr wrote: post #198
naillo wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"Maybe the future model in business and sales is more like the academic researcher" funny how nobody ever suggests that.

To the contrary, the future of the academic researcher is business and sales.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#207

Post by xdennis »

hackernewds wrote: post #137
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/

who gets to declare what is the "open source definition" and why?

The people who created the term: the Open Source Initiative.

Before, people most often used "free software" as defined by the free software movement, but some disliked this term because it's confusing (most think "free" means no money) and perceived to be anti-commercial.

The term "open source software" was chosen and given a precise definition.

It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation when it was specifically chosen to avoid confusion.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#208

Post by __loam »

Filligree wrote: post #205
voz_ wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you chill? It’s def open source

So I can build a business on it, then?

I believe Meta has explicitly said that you can, but that's not what open source means and the model isn't open source.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#209

Post by peteforde »

I just ran all of the cited installation steps, which appear to have been successful... but I am now experiencing a profound sense of "now what?"

There doesn't appear to be any new CLI executables installed, and the documentation links to an API but there's no clues on how to actually process a prompt.

What am I missing? Alternatively, I wouldn't mind using it in a Notebook but so far this thread doesn't link to anything so ambitious (yet?)

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#210

Post by __loam »

smoldesu wrote: post #89
ChildOfChaos wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely partly a PR/branding exercise as well. In the new world that Meta sees, of VR/AR and AI, Meta is in a position already were people don't want them to have much power in this world, because they don't trust them over privacy etc, meta is trying to pivot to become more trustworthy so they make genuine moves in this space.

That, or this is an ongoing research lab (FAIR) that has existed for ~half a decade and has advanced the state-of-the-art in AI further than Apple, Microsoft and Google combined.

I would be pretty shocked if meta were that far ahead of all 3 of those companies, all of which are also spending a fuck load on internal AI research.
Post reply on HN