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

291–300 of 335 posts

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#291

Post by janalsncm »

rvnx wrote: post #142
mcbuilder wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't get how bad Google is doing. They have a ton of top researchers, papers, money, just no good LLMs. It's like OpenAI was first to the punch, and everyone else just saw $$$. Meta was smart to go down this open source road, as the masses will start training their llamas one way or another. Personally I believe the "intelligence" aspect will asymptote, so even having exclusive access to a "super AI" (i.e. hy…

The problem also is that Google is making lot of grandiose announcements about tools and models that nobody can see nor use. This is a serious credibility problem in the long-term.

You can use some of them. They have an “AI powered” search (as if their previous search isn’t considered AI anymore). It’s an experiment you can turn on. For programming questions it’s not terrible.

That said, there are a ton of “look at this cool thing out research team did” and then you never hear about them again things from Google. They even built a music generator that was closed to the public until recently.

https://blog.google/technology/ai/musiclm-google-ai-test-kit...

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#292

Post by lannisterstark »

smoldesu wrote: post #289
lannisterstark wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm able to do everything in your hypothetical scenario besides illegally copy and redistribute the original content. If it makes me happy to write my name on the cover and pretend I wrote "Robert Frost's Poetry Collection" then so be it. Truly, if I want to say "fuck the original artists" in the comfort of my home or margins of the pages, I can do so. I can even sell that adulterated copy under the First Sale doctri…

>that content to be redistributed against your will

That is fine.

>If it makes me happy to write my name on the cover and pretend I wrote "Robert Frost's Poetry Collection" then so be it.

You can do whatever you want in your own house. No one is trying to dictate terms of what you do in your own private time in your own domicile. The problem occurs when you try to profit from my work, by pretending you did the work, and selling it to the public pretending to own and create the work which you have not.

>I can even sell that adulterated copy under the First Sale doctrine.

However, the idea of "You can add a chapter to this, call it your own, and sell it" and I won't legally come after you is absurd. and if the results of said legal pursuit result in you being bankrupt...what was the phrase you used, "then so be it."

---

Alternatively, you could write your own fictionalized work and sell it. But that requires more work than copying what I wrote, calling it yours, and selling it, doesn't it?

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#293

Post by janalsncm »

naillo wrote: post #194

I wish people made unconditional predictive models for music instead of text-to-music ones. Would be so cool to give an input 'inspiration' track that it 'riffs' a continuation to. That's usually what I want, just continue this track it's too short that's what I want to hear more of. (That said this is super cool though.)

Theoretically this is very possible using their techniques. They tokenize the audio and learn next tokens autoregressively. Instead of text tokens -> audio tokens as input, just tokenize a prior song and continue it.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#294

Post by [deleted] »

makestuff wrote: post #286

These models are going to end up being used for advertising. Soon pretty much every ad you see will be generative AI based. It makes A/B testing way easier as you no longer need a creative person to modify the ad or change something subtle about it. For example, the generative voice might change to a different speaker or something, and the AI can generate thousands of different voices to see which one is most effecti…

[deleted]

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#295

Post by janalsncm »

gilmore606 wrote: post #72
Pannoniae wrote: post #69

"generating new music in the style of existing music" will probably be a huge field soon. I can't wait for it to happen, it's a low-cost way of producing even more music to listen to.

> I can't wait for it to happen, it's a low-cost way of producing even more music to listen to. I can't really understand this. I'm a DJ and a huge music nerd, and I spend a lot of time every week discovering new music from the past 100 years and all over the world, and I'm constantly struck by _how much of it there is_. I've spent weeks just digging through psych-funk records from West Africa from the 1970s. How can…

It’s the same reason we have 250 Marvel movies that all tell the same story. People want the same, but different. They don’t give a damn about human creativity for the most part.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#296

Post by cwkoss »

chefandy wrote: post #265
cwkoss wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Putting commercial artists, aspiring fine artists, and hobby artists in the same bin doesn't make sense. There are a ton of career commercial artists that make money solely off of their work. If you think there are more aspiring career fine artists that don't end up making it than career commercial artists, you're wrong. They're not even in the same business.

Did you notice how you called all of them artists?

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#297

Post by ysleepy »

crazygringo wrote: post #276
oceanplexian wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> and reporters are not interested in reporting them You really think that if the NYT started altering its past stories, other publications would just... ignore it? It would be a front-page scandal that the WaPo would be delighted to report on. As well as a hundred other news publications. Thankfully.

That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories. You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in earnest.

If you can't alter world news headlines, you can still alter the tone of the article. If you can't alter front page news, you still can alter the remaining 95% of news.

Influencing public opinion is more subtle than the one important headline per day.

You are also ignoring the fact that news sites regularly edit published articles already, from fixed typos to corrections to large re-editings.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#298

Post by illwrks »

joshstrange wrote: post #183
illwrks wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the M1 macs capable enough? I'm eyeing and upgrade in the coming months and I'm curious if a MacBook would be suitable

I've run Stable Diffusion locally (both from the cli and later using GUI wrappers) and that used my GPUs, I've also run Llama locally but I believe that was on the CPU (I used both llama.cpp, cli, and Ollama, gui). So to sum it up: yes? Or at least it's good enough for me.

Great thanks!

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#299

Post by zitterbewegung »

ElFitz wrote: post #45
zitterbewegung wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not do generate music you like which wouldn’t need you to upload your library and would have RLHF baked in.

Something like the algorithm TikTok uses. First probing by offering a variety of content that should match based on what little information you have on the user (ip location, locale, etc). Then use the user’s action to iteratively refine your classification, until you end up with something tailor-made.

Uh more like Reddit with up and down and also how long you listen.

Re: Open-sourcing AudioCraft: Generative AI for audio

#300

Post by bottlepalm »

crazygringo wrote: post #114
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.

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…

If I have a random picture, video, text - it's not easy at all to verify its authenticity. Hopefully a media organization has it, but even then are there any services I can use to validate? Definitely not family/personal media, any media that wasn't reported on by a large organization with the ability to manage large archives of data.

I'm saying this is going to become increasingly important fast, and we may miss the window where now almost everything not properly indexed by a large media organization is invalidated as there is no way to verify it.

I have a picture of Frank Sinatra at Disney World riding the tea cups. Who is the Frank Sinatra media authority that can tell me if this ever happened or not? A very small example to extrapolate from. It's going to get worse when everyone can create audio/video/pictures/text of anything they can dream.

The past may very well become a fictional dream, mythology, most of it impossible to verify.

Post reply on HN