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

251–260 of 335 posts

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#251

Post by oceanplexian »

crazygringo wrote: post #131
ysleepy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. With ML tools it is possible to make sweeping changes to images and text that are often impossible to detect. combined with the centralisation of most online activities, large players could alter the past. Imagine facebook decides to subtly change every public post and comment to show some particular person or cause in a better light.

If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. We have tons of credible archived sources owned by different institutions. And these sources are successful in large part due to their cr…

> If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare.

Detection doesn't really matter, because people are too lazy to validate the facts, and reporters are not interested in reporting them. AI is simply another tool to manipulate people, like Wikipedia, Reddit.com, Twitter, or any other BS psuedo-authority. Think someone will actually crack open a book to prove the AI wrong? Not a chance.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#252

Post by wpietri »

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…

I might point you to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution: "[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

They are with you on the advance, and that in the long term science and the useful arts can't be owned. But to achieve that long-term goal, they saw it as valuable to give people temporary rights to align those "personal wants" with "our collective advancements".

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#253

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> My point is that if you don't think that all of these situations are equally infringing of CC-BY-NC, then you need to explain why some are commercial and some are not.

What “NonCommercial” means in the license is explictly defined in the license, and if you think either those examples, or more to the point, every possible use ever so as to render ‘NonCommercial’ into ‘no use’ as you have claimed, you need to make that argument, based on the definition in the license, not some concept of what might be construed as commercial use by general legal principles if the license used the term without its own explicit definition.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#254

Post by cwkoss »

munificent wrote: post #188
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…

> 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…

The idea of intellectual property being property that someone owns is a purely social construct though.

Candy can be consumed to depletion. Art gets richer the more it is consumed.

A much better analogy would be having a sculpture in your front yard. The idea that a kid would be an asshole for appreciating the sculpture too much is obviously laughable. People choose decorate their yards for the status having an attractive yard brings, without the expectation of profit from it.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#257

Post by dragonwriter »

kmeisthax wrote: post #187
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…

Noncommercial use is not well established in copyright law, which is the law that actually matters. I know other forms of law actually do establish noncommercial and commercial use standards, but copyright does not recognize them. As for "Facebook won't sue"? Sure, except we don't have to worry about just Facebook. We have to worry about anyone with a derivative model. There's an entire industry of copyleft trolls[0]…

> Noncommercial use is not well established in copyright law, which is the law that actually matters.

No, for “NonCommercial”, what actually matters is the explicit definition in the license.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#258

Post by wpietri »

oceanplexian wrote: post #245
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…

> No one's going to spend all day making candy and put it in the "free candy" bowl when that one asshole kid down the street just takes all of the candy out of the bowl every single day. Software is an infinite candy bowl. Taking candy out of the bowl does not take any candy from the person who made it. Imagine if this was the physical world, and you had a machine that could end world hunger. You could copy food like…

> Software is an infinite candy bowl.

More in theory than in practice. Ask any open-source maintainer how much running a popular project is unlike putting out an infinite candy bowl and then going on with your life.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#260

Post by munificent »

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.

PhDs and professors are paid a living wage (though less so over time as federal funding for higher institutions has dwindled).

Academia is a carefully constructed system whose incentive structure is based on highly visible explicitly measured citations and reputation.

People aren't generally just trying to maximize wealth. They're trying to maximize their sense of personal value, which tends to be a combination of wealth, autonomy, and social prestige. Academics (and some creative fields) tend to be biased towards those who prioritize prestige over wealth.

Post reply on HN