• 4 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 19th, 2023

help-circle


  • I have really mixed feelings about this. My stance is that I don’t you should need permission to train on somebody else’s work since that is far too restrictive on what people can do with the music (or anything else) they paid for. This assumes it was obtained fairly: buying the tracks of iTunes or similar and not torrenting them or dumping the library from a streaming service. Of course, this can change if a song it taken down from stores (you can’t buy it) or the price is so high that a normal person buying a small amount of songs could not afford them (say 50 USD a track). Same goes for non-commercial remixing and distribution. This is why I thinking judging these models and services on output is fairer: as long as you don’t reproduce the work you trained on I think that should be fine. Now this needs some exceptions: producing a summary, parody, heavily-changed version/sample (of these, I think this is the only one that is not protected already despite widespread use in music already).

    So putting this all together: the AIs mentioned seem to have re-produced partial copies of some of their training data, but it required fairly tortured prompts (I think some even provided lyrics in the prompt to get there) to do so since there are protections in place to prevent 1:1 reproductions; in my experience Suno rejects requests that involve artist names and one of the examples puts spaces between the letters of “Mariah”. But the AIs did do it. I’m not sure what to do with this. There have been lawsuits over samples and melodies so this is at least even handed Human vs AI wise. I’ve seen some pretty egregious copies of melodies too outside remixed and bootlegs to so these protections aren’t useless. I don’t know if maybe more work can be done to essentially Content ID AI output first to try and reduce this in the future? That said, if you wanted to just avoid paying for a song there are much easier ways to do it than getting a commercial AI service to make a poor quality replica. The lawsuit has some merit in that the AI produced replicas it shouldn’t have, but much of this wreaks of the kind of overreach that drives people to torrents in the first place.










  • conorab@lemmy.conorab.comtoMemes@lemmy.mlJust one more lane
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the most infuriating part. The best solution to these issues is to remove the need to move in the first place, and WFH for the people that want it and who can do it removes a huge amount of traffic with comparably little cost (company laptop, a screen and maybe a desk and chair, many of which could just be taken from the office).





  • This is why people say not to use USB for permanent storage. But, to answer the question:

    • From memory, “nofail” means the machine continues to boot if the drive does not show up which explains why it’s showing up as 100GB: you’re seeing the size of the disk mounted to / .
    • If the only purpose of these drives is to be passed through to Open Media Vault, why not pass through the drives as USB devices? At least that way only OMV will fail and not the whole host.
    • Why USB? Can the drives ve shucked and connected directly to the host or do they use a propriety connector to the drive itself that prevents that?




  • UEFI or legacy BIOS? I recently installed Windows 11 on a machine with Proxmox on NVME but installed Windows on a SATA SSD. Windows added its boot entry to the NVME SSD but did not get rid of the Proxmox boot entry.

    I’ve definitely had the same issue as you on in the past on legacy BIOS and when I worked in a computer shop 2014-2015 we always removed any extra drives before installing Windows to avoid this issue (not like the other drives had an OS anyway).