7 ms·
> MusicGen, which was trained with Meta-owned and specifically licensed music, generates music from text-based user inputs, while AudioGen, which was trained on
by gavman 3y ago
> MusicGen, which was trained with Meta-owned and specifically licensed music, generates music from text-based user inputs, while AudioGen, which was trained on public sound effects, generates audio from text-based user inputs.
Meta is really clearly trying to differentiate themselves from OpenAI here. Open source + driving home "we don't use data we haven't paid for / don't own".
- itsyaboi 3y agoBully "Open"AI into rebranding.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kmeisthax 3y agoThis is purely a function of everyone remembering the RIAA's decade-long campaign to prevent people from taking the music they had rightfully stolen. As far as I'm aware LLaMA was trained on "publicly available data"[0], not "licensed data". Furthermore, 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[1]. This is not only a 'weights-available' license, but it's significantly more restrictive than the morality clause bearing OpenRAIL license that Stability likes to use[2]. [0] https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/MODEL_CA... [1] https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LICENSE_weights https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LIC... [2] These are also very much Not Open Source™ but the morality clauses in OpenRAIL are at least non-onerous enough to collaborate over.
- eropple 3y ago> 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?
- analognoise 3y agoI think the key word there is "noncommercial".
- dragonwriter 3y agoYes, but you can easily make noncommercial use of an art generator. Obviously, you can't host a commercial art generation service with a noncommercial-use license, and (insofar as art produced by a generator is a derivative work of the model weights, which is a controversial and untested legal theory) you can’t make commercial art with a noncommercial license, but not all art is commercial.
- kmeisthax 3y ago"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 creative work. You can still make money off of AudioCraft by just hosting it with banner ads next to the output. Even a "no monetization" clause[0] would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only", because it'd at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices. [0] Which already precludes the use of AudioCraft music on YouTube since you can't do unmonetized uploads anymore
- dragonwriter 3y ago> “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 subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-sharing or similar means is NonCommercial provided there is no payment of monetary compensation in connection with the exchange.” > Even if you don’t intend to make money the law still considers the work itself to be commercial. Even if you do make money, if the use is “not primarily intended” for that purpose, it is "NonCommercial" in the terms of the license. > 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. It has the filesharing term in it because it permits that particular exchange-of-value as a primary purpose. > Even a “no monetization” clause would be less onerous than "noncommercial use only" How would a clause that prohibits monetization entirely be less onerous than one which prohibits it only as the primary intent of use? > it’d at least be legal to use AudioCraft for things like background music in offices. It is legal to use it for that purpose (in a for-profit enterprise, I suppose, one might make an argument that any activity was ultimately primarily directed at “commercial advantage”, but in a government or many nonprofit environments, that wouldn’t be the case.)
- ericpauley 3y agoMy understanding (IANAL) [1] is that copyright licenses have no say on the output of software. Further, CC licenses don't say anything about running or using software (or model weights). It's therefore questionable whether the CC-BY-NC license actually prevents commercial use of the model. [1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12070/allowed-uses-of-a-software-licensed-under-cc-by-nc-license https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12070/allowed...
- Tepix 3y agoYou're wrong because software, as you describe it, includes the "cp" command which creates a perfect copy.
- tikhonj 3y agoThe copyright license of the cp code itself has no bearing on the copyright of what you produce (well, copy) with cp.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThat's not the point they're making. They're replying to their parent comment.
- ericpauley 3y agoAs sibling noted, we’re talking about the impact of a software’s license on use of its output. I suppose your point would stand if the software were a quine?
- cosmojg 3y agoYou're correct, but no one has had the balls (or the lawyers) to clarify this in court yet. Expect to see hosting providers complying with takedown requests for the foreseeable future.
- indymike 3y agoHosting providers *have* to comply with takedown requests to maintain safe harbor.
- Blackthorn 3y ago> there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator I'm sorry, what?
- rvnx 3y agoGoogle is running on "publicly available data", not "licensed data"
- schleck8 3y ago> as there is no noncommercial use you could make of an art generator r/stablediffusion gives you a hundred examples daily of people just having fun and not thinking of monetizing their generations
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- scrum-treats 3y ago> "Meta is really clearly trying to differentiate themselves from OpenAI here. Open source + driving home "we don't use data we haven't paid for / don't own"." Isn't Meta settling lawsuits for this right now? In addition to violating user privacy (another lawsuit)... Meta is attempting to destroy competition; that's it. Similar to how they paid a fortune to lobby against Tiktok for the exact reasons Meta is under active investigation (again). The irony.
- ChildOfChaos 3y agoIt's likely partly a PR/branding exercise as well. In the new world that Meta sees, of VR/AR and AI, Meta is in a position already were people don't want them to have much power in this world, because they don't trust them over privacy etc, meta is trying to pivot to become more trustworthy so they make genuine moves in this space.
- smoldesu 3y agoThat, or this is an ongoing research lab (FAIR) that has existed for ~half a decade and has advanced the state-of-the-art in AI further than Apple, Microsoft and Google combined.
- __loam 3y agoI would be pretty shocked if meta were that far ahead of all 3 of those companies, all of which are also spending a fuck load on internal AI research.
- smoldesu 3y agoIf all three of those companies have something to show for their research, none of it is at the scale or level of accessibility Pytorch, Llama and now Audiocraft offer.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago> all of which are also spending a fuck load on internal AI research. But their internal research stays internal. Sometimes, they put out "papers" which are glorified advertisements, often going as far as hiding the model architecture just to keep their competitive advantage.
- __loam 3y agoI get that, I'm just saying the original statement, that meta is further along than all of those companies combined, is a pretty wild claim.
- upshide 3y ago[dead]
- croes 3y ago"If we don't win here, then at least we'll kick their lawn to pieces."
- archontes 3y agoYou don't own data. You can sometimes copyright data. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/publications/scitech_lawyer/2020/winter/beyond-data-privacy-data-ownership-and-regulation-datadriven-business/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/science_technology/public...
- JeremyNT 3y agoThe fact that Meta is able to lie and call their restrictive licensing open source is nearly as misleading as "OpenAI." We need to do better than to repeat these claims uncritically. The weight licenses are not "open source" by any useful definition, and we should not give Meta kudos for their misleading PR (especially considering that they almost surely ignored any copyright when training these things - rules for thee, but not for me). "Not as closed as OpenAI" is accurate, but also damning with faint praise.
- voz_ 3y agoCan you chill? It’s def open source
- Filligree 3y agoSo I can build a business on it, then?
- __loam 3y agoI believe Meta has explicitly said that you can, but that's not what open source means and the model isn't open source.
- mkl 3y agoMeta says to imagine you can: "Imagine a professional musician being able to explore new compositions without having to play a single note on an instrument. Or an indie game developer populating virtual worlds with realistic sound effects and ambient noise on a shoestring budget. Or a small business owner adding a soundtrack to their latest Instagram post with ease." In reality, you can't, as they licensed the weights for noncommercial use only: https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft#license https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft#license
- chaxor 3y agoResearch does exist you know. This is immensely helpful for a huge number of people in academia. If you want to build a company, perhaps you should do what everyone in the industry has done for millennia, copy the movements performed and optimize them while doing so.
- samstave 3y agoThey are doing PR damage control with an influx of AI stuffs due to the ridicule of metaverse and the recent revelations of threads (for which they are playing the long AI game) -- [are not concrened about all threads and IG and other accounts being linked via their internal LLMs we will never hear about?
- jstummbillig 3y agoYes. Meta is in the business of commanding as much of peoples time as possible. AI is more or less the biggest danger to this model (apart from legislation, theoretically, but let's not kid ourselves). Making AI a commodity is in their very interest.
- agilob 3y agoGoddamn, Facebook being the good guy...
- version_five 3y agoThey'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.
- agilob 3y agoSounds like they're good enough. Enemy of Microsoft is my friend
- deepvibrations 3y agoNah, this is just the modern tech playbook: First you open source stuff, then you can monitor all the related development happening and whenever you see areas of interest/popularity, you simply clone the functionality or buy out whatever entity is building that interesting stuff.