Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

Post by oceanplexian » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

strikelaserclaw wrote: post #191

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…

Most people these days interact with news through comments, if comments looks legit, a lot of people assume the source is legit. Imagine a world in which a fake video has the bbc logo on it and ai generated comments act if they are discussing the video but they subtly manipulate, like 60% of the comments advocate a certain view point and 40% are random memes, advocate against it etc... The average person would easily…

Post by danielheath » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 9:58 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…

Post by chefandy » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 10:01 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #262

chefandy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The majority artists never receive a single red cent from the humans who consume their work. This is how it has always been, and fundamental to the economics of art. Things people are willing to do regardless of financial compensation rarely pay well.

Post by thfuran » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #254

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…

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 attra…

Post by vel0city » Wed, Aug 02, 2023, 10:05 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #128

kmeisthax wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Noncommercial art" is not a thing in the eyes of the law. Even if you don't intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial. That's why CC-BY-NC has to have a special "filesharing is non-commercial" statement in it, because people have made successful legal arguments that it is. You're probably thinking of "not charging a fee to use", which is a subset of all the ways you can monetize a…

> “Noncommercial art” is not a thing in the eyes of the law The definition of “NonCommercial”, the oddly capitalized term of art in the license, is not a matter of general law, it is a matter of the license, which defines it as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material sub…