Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio • Hacker News Board

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#231

Post by bottlepalm » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:14 PM UTC

seydor wrote: post #103

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.

The past ended in 2022

Agree. Any video/image/text created post-2022 is now suspect of being AI generated (even this comment). And without any 'registering' of pre-2022 content, we can easily lose track and not really know what from pre-2022 is authentic or not.

Maybe it's not a big deal to 'lose' the past, maybe landfills will be mined for authentic content.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#232

Post by Workaccount2 » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:15 PM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #12

Wonder how far off the whole "generate music based on your existing music library" thing is going to be? That'll make musicians happy with big tech as well, just like artists are. *sigh*

Ugh, I dread having to listen to everyone's hyper personal music because they swear up and down to the point of tears that "IT'S THE BEST SONG EVER CREATED! EVER!!!", while the constantly prod for you to affirm how amazing the song is.

Bruh, music is subjective as hell, and I can already tell I hate this song.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#233

Post by IAmGraydon » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:18 PM UTC

parekhnish wrote: post #153

Generative AI for images and music produce pixels and waveform data, respectively. I wonder if there is research into "procedural" data; so in this case, it would be SVG elements and, perhaps, MIDI data respectively. I know training data would be much more harder to get, (notwithstanding legal ramifications), but I think that creating structured, procedural data will be much more interesting than just the final, "raw…

I've thought about this too. The instruments themselves can be synthesized for extremely high quality audio. All we need is the musical structure - the MIDI.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#234

Post by chrisjj » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:23 PM UTC

zapdrive wrote: post #127

Incoming strike by American Federation of Musicians in 3, 2, 1.... How many jobs would this thing take away? One of the biggest time consuming in any video production is post production audio including background music, audio, Foley etc. This will automate almost of it!

This would take away all the jobs producing such low-quality low-fi artifact-laden background music... if any existed.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#235

Post by mkl » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:24 PM UTC

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

The source code is, as it's MIT, but the weights are not, as they're CC-BY-NC: https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft#license

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#236

Post by chrisjj » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:25 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #158

Wouldn't Pandora's possibly vast library associating textual descriptions with music be the ideal training data for something like this?

Yes... except that Pandora's library does not include the music.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#237

Post by mkl » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:27 PM UTC

__loam wrote: post #208

Filligree wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meta says to imagine you can: "Imagine a professional musician being able to explore new compositions without having to play a single note on an instrument. Or an indie game developer populating virtual worlds with realistic sound effects and ambient noise on a shoestring budget. Or a small business owner adding a soundtrack to their latest Instagram post with ease."

In reality, you can't, as they licensed the weights for noncommercial use only: https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft#license

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#238

Post by CSSer » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:29 PM UTC

Does anyone else hear a kind of background static in these samples? It almost sounds like part of the track is more compressed in terms of dynamic range than other parts, which doesn't make any sense to me. I'm trying to decide if this is my own confirmation bias at work or not.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#239

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

lannisterstark wrote: post #221

RyanAdamas wrote: post #152

For my two cents; 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. It is not to "own more rights" to shit. Sorry, but no one actually owns what they create, that's the point of creation. And if you take issue with the term create, that only reinforces my point. We're all influence machines, input and o…

Ah yes, you should be free to rewrite the fictional work I wrote or add one chapter to it and be free to sell it under your name magically implying that you are the author. Screw the original artists, right? Why should they deserve anything. Thankfully your opinion is an extreme opinion and will never come to pass. Tough shit indeed. :) ---- I really like hackernews but recently I've been seeing a plethora of "your r…

[deleted]

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#240

Post by chefandy » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:33 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.

No it's not-- researchers generally get paychecks. Even if they're small, they can pay for their housing and buy their kid food.

Artists don't see a single red cent from their work being sucked up into some AI content blender. Their work is being taken and used-- often in service of others making a profit-- and they receive nothing. Not even credit.

Edit: Well, they don't receive nothing-- they get a bunch of people telling them they're selfish jerks for wanting to support themselves with their work.