At even just 10 minutes a stop, that is over 30 hours of this poor man's life he has spent staring at the berries and cherries just because some entitled cop thought he deserved a photo op.

I am a musician as well as a technology enthusiast, and I think this a very exciting time!

To respond more directly to your point than your aside, there are a smattering of models out there that can take descriptions of sounds and do a decent job of creating them. (Stable Audio 3 just released last month and can do this, for example). - I don't find them to be useful for sampling, though. I'm still much quicker dialing in a sound with knobs or sliders than a text box.

Diffusion models in music making are not going away, though. This is (at least in part) the future.

For a taste, look at some of the interesting things being done over in the Demon project - https://github.com/daydreamlive/DEMON - to me, this is a much more positive use of the tech than "type words/get song".

It isn't that we have a "preference" for these things, it is far more likely that a user just doesn't have their guard up 100% of the time, and these psychological manipulations are designed to cut through that.

Sure, these strategies probably net clicks, but they aren't from people who "chose" your product, they are clicks from people who were manipulated into clicking.

I suppose whether you think that is okay depends on your industry and ethics.

"Congress is engaged in a witch hunt" is so 1950s.

"Civil rights should be applied to everyone" is so 1960s.

"Fossil Fuels are destroying the plant" is so 1970s.

"Unregulated free trade is dangerous" is so 1980s.

"The police are out of control and unduly target minorities" is so 1990s.

Something being old doesn't make it less relevant or important.

It means we need to say it louder, because for some reason the point hasn't been made clearly enough yet.

The main advantage, however, is that the friction of "this is going to cost me in tokens to even try" goes away. I was so much more willing to take chances and try new things on my own hardware than I would have been if I were paying API costs. I feel like this point isn't made clearly enough by those of us who run these absurd self-hosted inference systems.

Thanks for the write up, was a fun read. I spent an order of magnitude less, but I could relate to your story from beginning to end.

Epyc (Milan), 512gb ram, 4x 3090

Just an assumption, though!

I don't know why you are taking such a hostile position towards someone you have never interacted with, but you are welcome to believe what you will. I don't feel any need to prove or justify my actions to Internet strangers. I've participated in the FL/OSS software movement long enough that I still put the FL/ in front of the name.

I don't sell my thoughts, they are freely given. If everyone behaved this way, there would be no need for copyright (or copyleft). I choose to engage the world in the way I wish it to be.

Source code is a recipe. You can't copyright recipes by themselves, but that hasn't caused any sort of chilling effect in the food and hospitality industries.

I agree with you that removing copyright protections breaks the GPL. What I think most responses to my comment miss is that we wouldnt NEED the GPL without copyright. Copyleft only exists so that copyright cannot be used by companies against users.

I know Stallman isnt the most popular on this forum, but history has sorta proven he was right, time after time.

Not everything has to be done for a profit. Plenty of us make software, art, and technology because we find it fun and interesting to work on, and because we want to live in a world that is richer for it.

Removing draconian intellectual property laws that mostly only benefit the giant corporations that lobbied for them isn't going to stop me from doing so, and I doubt it would stop many others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

If you're trying to make a profit, you can invest capital to do your own development or reach out to the source to arrange compensation.

This astroturfing of open licenses as if they are solely for the exploitation of profit and not of the common good is a terrible trend.

They engineered something and gave it away for free. It appears as if you are complaining that you can't use it to generate profit. This seems entitled to me, am I misunderstanding your position?