I find it interesting that they are releasing the code and lovely instructions for training, but no model. They are almost begging anonymous folks to hook the data loader up to an Apple Music account and go nuts. Not that I am suggesting anyone do that.
Stable-Audio-Demo
51–60 of 249 posts
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#52> We append “high-quality, stereo” to our sound effects prompts because it is generally helpful. It's hilarious that we've discovered you can get better outputs from LLMs by simply nicely telling it to generate better results.
Maybe sometimes you want an old cassette sound, or even older scratched 78 rpm sound, etc. Computers, as usual, do what you asked them to do, not what you meant.
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#53This is right into the "uncanny valley" of music. It definitely sounded "like music", but none of it is what a human would produce. There's just something off.
Here is a silly song I generated using suno.ai, which I have found to be incredibly impressive (at least, a small percentage of its outputs are very good, most are bad). I think it's good enough that most humans wouldn't realise it's AI generated. https://app.suno.ai/song/8a64868d-9dd3-46db-91af-f962d4bec8b...
[deleted]
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
For generative models, if the model authors do not publish the architecture of their model; and, the model uses a transformation from text to another kind of media; you can assume that they have delegated some part of their model to a text encoder or similar feature which is trained on data that they do not have an express license to. Even for rightsholders with tens of millions to hundreds of millions of library ite…
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML.
kill open source ML -> decrease speed of improvements for some open source ML
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
For generative models, if the model authors do not publish the architecture of their model; and, the model uses a transformation from text to another kind of media; you can assume that they have delegated some part of their model to a text encoder or similar feature which is trained on data that they do not have an express license to. Even for rightsholders with tens of millions to hundreds of millions of library ite…
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
Is there a license that states: if you use this data for ML training you must open source model weights and architecture?
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. kill open source ML -> decrease speed of improvements for some open source ML
Sadly not. Making something illegal has social effects, not just legal effects. I’ve grown tired of being verbally spit on for books3. One lovely fellow even said that he hoped my daughter grows up resenting me for it.
It being legal is the only guard against that kind of thing. People will still be angry, but they won’t be so numerous. Right now everyone outside of AI almost universally despises the way AI is trained.
Which means you won’t be able to say that you do open source ML without risking your job. People will be angry enough to try to get you fired for it.
(If that sounds extreme, count yourself lucky that you haven’t tried to assemble any ML datasets and release them. The LAION folks are in the crosshairs for supposedly including CSAM in their dataset, and they’re not even a dataset, just an index.)
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#57> Warning: This website may not function properly on Safari. For the best experience, please use Google Chrome Do better
By the way, it does work on Firefox Android. No idea of what there is in Safari that's not standard in Chrome and Firefox.
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. That’s why it’s important for OpenAI to win the upcoming court cases. If they lose, they’ll survive. But it will be the end of open model releases. To be clear, I don’t like the idea of companies profiting off of people’s work. I just like open source dying even less.
Is there a license that states: if you use this data for ML training you must open source model weights and architecture?
It’s deeper than that. The basis of licensing is copyright. If the upcoming court cases rule in OpenAI’s favor, you won’t be able to apply copyright to training data. Which means you can’t license it.
Or rather, you can, but everyone is free to ignore you. A license without teeth is no license at all. The GPL is only relevant because it’s enforceable in court.
I’m sure some countries will try the licensing route though, so perhaps there you’d be able to make one.
EDIT: I misread you, sorry. You’re saying that if OpenAI loses and license fees become the norm, maybe people will be willing to let their data be used for open source models, and a license could be crafted to that effect.
Probably, yes. But the question is whether there’s enough training data to compete with the big companies that can afford to license much more. I’m doubtful, but it could be worth a try.
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you require licensing fees for training data, you kill open source ML. kill open source ML -> decrease speed of improvements for some open source ML
Sadly not. Making something illegal has social effects, not just legal effects. I’ve grown tired of being verbally spit on for books3. One lovely fellow even said that he hoped my daughter grows up resenting me for it. It being legal is the only guard against that kind of thing. People will still be angry, but they won’t be so numerous. Right now everyone outside of AI almost universally despises the way AI is traine…
If everyone is unhappy with your rampant piracy, then perhaps that is a sign that you’re doing it wrong?
Re: Stable-Audio-Demo
#60Interestingly, Ed Newton-Rex, the person hired to build Stable Audio, quit shortly after it was released due to concerns around copyright and the training data being used. He’s since founded https://www.fairlytrained.org/ Reference: https://x.com/ednewtonrex
Not that it would have stopped the company for doing it anyway, but couldn't he think about that before working from them?
Or did he needed that as it i part of the business model of his certfications?