311–320 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goddamn, Facebook being the good guy...
They're not, they're playing a longer Microsoft style game to corrupt the meaning of open source, and releasing models under their terms to undermine competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should start with AudioCraft itself, conceptually it's derivative work and it doesn't matter if it's "open source" or not. Try throwing in someone's sample in a song and publish it saying "no copyright infringement intended and I totally don't make any money from it"... If it becomes popular, see how long it stays up until DMCA takedown. And we know this dataset is already popular.
> and publish it This is precisely the opposite of the context I was remarking on.
"From text to audio with ease"
I hoped for a second we would get a good quality model to do text to speech - damn, I guess it's back to bruteforcing bark.ai or waiting for tortoise (or more realistically, just paying elevenlabs)
CC-BY-NC Isn't an open source licence, it violates point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main gradio app has been moved to the demos folder. python demos/musicgen_app.py Otherwise you can check the jupyter notebooks in the same folder.
Thanks! This will be even more helpful if you could share a hint about where this was installed to. I carefully went through the output generated by the "pip install -U audiocraft" command, and there were no clues provided. Disclosure: I am not a Python developer, so I apologize if this is a master-of-the-obvious question for Python folks. However, if there was ever a scenario where a line or two of post-install note…
Disregarding the tip above, determining where the library was installed requires a bit of context, for example your platform (Windows versus UNIX) and the fact that newer pip releases default to "pip install --user" when not running with super-user privileges, whereas older pip releases did not default to "pip install --user".
Assuming you are using Linux and using an up-to-date pip release and you ran the "pip install -U audiocraft" command without super-user privileges, then the library was most likely installed in ~/.local/lib/pythonX.Y/site-packages (where X.Y is the version of Python that was used by the pip command you ran).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unlikely that model weights can be copyrighted, as they're the result of an automatic process.
> It’s unlikely that model weights can be copyrighted, as they’re the result of an automatic process. If they can’t for that reason alone , then the model is a mechanical copy of the training set, which may be subject to a (compilation) copyright, and a mechanical copy of a copyright-protected work is still subject to the copyright of the thing of which it is a copy. OTOH, the choices made beyond the training set and…
In this instance, it's very likely that the process is sufficiently transformative. A set of model weights look nothing like the Mona Lisa, nor can they be directly transformed back into it. What it is NOT is the product of a creative process on the part of a human, and is thus ineligible for copyright.
It is as though we are able to distill meaning using an automatic process. Copyright doesn't protect meaning, only expression, and it only protects expressions that were generated by humans.
The network itself might be patentable if it isn't obvious.
If a network was copyrighted and it was found that the function of the network was inseparable from its expression, it would no longer be eligible for copyright on that basis.
I think people often misunderstand the application of copyright to GPL code in this way.
Now, will any of this stop people from CLAIMING copyright? No. It'll have to be fought out in courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you notice how you called all of them artists?
You're not serious, right? How about sandwich artists? Custodial artists? Con artists? Are Social engineers, microsoft certified systems engineers, cisco certified security engineers, mechanical engineers, technical support engineers, train engineers, and agricultural engineers all functionally and economically equivalent? Are professional cooks and home cooks economically equivalent because they're both cooks?
Deviantart in the 00s was a huge repository of art people were mostly making for free. Some people got lucky and turned that into a full time occupation, but the vast majority didn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not serious, right? How about sandwich artists? Custodial artists? Con artists? Are Social engineers, microsoft certified systems engineers, cisco certified security engineers, mechanical engineers, technical support engineers, train engineers, and agricultural engineers all functionally and economically equivalent? Are professional cooks and home cooks economically equivalent because they're both cooks?
Nobody is necessarily owed money for creating art, regardless of whether it was done by hand or with machines (unless they were specifically commissioned to create the work). The economics of art are subject to market forces, and they always have been - long before AI became an additional factor (among many others) in why an artist may not earn a living from their art. Deviantart in the 00s was a huge repository of a…
None of the people whose art was sucked up by these machines had any idea that this would be integrated into for-profit tools and used against them in the market place, and almost certainly would not have consented if they had known that. The ones with copyrighted images didn't even give legal consent. The fact that Getty's logo showed up in red carpet images is a symptom of a problem that obviously went well beyond Getty, but there's no way an independent artist could prove it.
Furthermore, if you think artists + luck = commercial art you're completely 100% wrong. Most art school graduates don't go into fine art for self-expression with some lucky individuals matriculating into careers-- they go for job training. Go look at the degree programs for any art school-- almost all of them translate into a full-time commercial career immediately out of school the same way a STEM degree does. Concept artists, illustrators, character artists, environmental artists, graphic desginers, VFX artists, animators, cinematographers, choreographers, commercial musicians and composers, photographers... these people don't just spring up out of the fine art world. That is their career. I know because I am one.
Your ethics-dodging free market tech libertarian garbage holds no sway with me, so you might as well just save yourself the keystrokes.