[HN Gopher] Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI...
___________________________________________________________________
Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
Author : ink404
Score : 182 points
Date : 2024-01-19 17:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu)
| ink404 wrote:
| Paper is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13828
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Artists sitting in art school looking at other artists pictures
| to learn how to paint in different styles defend against AI
| learning from their pictures how to paint in different styles.
| visarga wrote:
| AI is just a tool in someone's hand, there's a human who
| intends something
| ta8645 wrote:
| If that's true, then it should be fine for that human to
| paint with the brush of his AI tool. Why should that human
| artist be restricted in the types of tools he uses to create
| his artwork?
| thfuran wrote:
| Should I be restricted in using copy paste as my tool for
| creating art?
| NoraCodes wrote:
| This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models
| are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human
| artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.
| persnickety wrote:
| As a representative of a lot of things but hardly any capital
| who uses diffusion models to get something I would otherwise
| not pay a human artist for anyway, I testify that, the models
| are not exclusively what you describe them to be.
|
| I do not support indiscriminate banning of anything and
| everything that can potentially be used to fuck someone over.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| I did not say they were _exclusively_ that; I said they
| _were_ that.
|
| Once we as a society have implemented a good way for the
| artists whose work powers these machines to survive, you
| can feel good about using them. Until then, frankly, you're
| doing something immoral by paying to use them.
| akx wrote:
| What if I run Stable Diffusion locally without paying
| anyone anything? Is it less immoral?
| NoraCodes wrote:
| Marginally, yeah, since you're not supporting the
| development of more capable labor-saving devices in this
| category.
|
| I'm still not a fan, though.
| riversflow wrote:
| How is empowering others to create not a moral good?
| Filligree wrote:
| Who pays to use generators? The open ones are way more
| capable and interesting, generally.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| Is that really your concern?
|
| Whether you pay for it?
|
| Let's put it this way: paying for or not paying for
| stolen goods. Does it make any difference?
|
| Why is that remotely relevant?
|
| You want to argue "are the good stolen?" Sure. That's a
| discussion we can have.
|
| Did you pay for them or not? Who cares?
| jsheard wrote:
| Isn't high-quality open image generation almost entirely
| dependent on Stability releasing their foundational
| models for free, at great expense to them?
|
| That's not something you'll be able to rely on long-term,
| there won't always be a firehose of venture capital money
| to subsidise that kind of charity.
| Filligree wrote:
| The cost of training them is going down, though. Given
| the existence of models like Pixart, I don't think we'll
| stay dependent on corporate charity for long.
| Levitz wrote:
| By this logic we ought to start lynching artists, why
| they didn't care about all of those who lost their jobs
| making pigments, canvasses, pencils, brushes etc etc
| hirsin wrote:
| Artists pay those people and make their jobs needed. Same
| as the person above claiming Duchamp didn't negotiate
| with the ceramics makers - yes, they absolutely did and
| do pay their suppliers. Artists aren't smash and grabbing
| their local Blick.
|
| AI pays no artist.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| Not digital artists, though.
| SonicSoul wrote:
| great comment!
|
| imagine being a photographer that takes decades to perfect
| their craft. sure another student can study and mimic your
| style. but it's still different than some computer model
| "ingesting" vast amount of photos and vomiting something
| similar for $5.99 in aws cpu cost so that some prompt jockey
| can call themselves an AI artist and make money off of other
| peoples talent.
|
| i get that this is cynical and does not encompass all ai art,
| but why not let computers develop their own style wihout
| ingesting human art? that's when it would actually be AI art
| wincy wrote:
| Like 99.9% of the art the common people care about is Darth
| Vader and Taylor Swift and other pop culture stuff like
| that.
|
| These people literally don't care what your definition of
| what is and isn't art is, or how it's made, they just want
| a lock screen wallpaper of themselves fighting against
| Thanos on top of a volcano.
|
| The argument of "what is art" has been an academic
| conversation largely ignored by the people actually
| consuming the art for hundreds of years. Photography was
| just pop culture trash, comics were pop culture trash,
| stick figure web comics were pop culture trash. Today's pop
| culture trash is the "prompt jockey".
|
| I make probably 5-10 pictures every day over the course of
| maybe 20 minutes as jokes on Teams because we have Bing
| Chat Enterprise. My coworkers seem to enjoy it. Nobody
| cares that it's generated. I'm also not trying to be an
| "artist" whatever that means. It just is, and it's fun. I
| wasn't gonna hire an artist to draw me pictures to shitpost
| to my coworkers. It's instead unlocked a new fun way to
| communicate.
| SonicSoul wrote:
| not entirely sure what your point is, but i think you are
| saying that art is just a commodity we use for cheap
| entertainment so it's ok for computers to do the same?
|
| in the context of what i was saying the definition of
| what is art can be summed up as anything made by humans.
| i have no problem when its used in memes and being open
| sourced etc.. the issue i have is when a human invests
| real time into it and then its taken and regurgitated
| without their permission. do you see that distinction?
| Levitz wrote:
| Because that's not what happens, ever. You wouldn't ask a
| human to have their style of photographing when they don't
| know what a photograph even looks like.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| That's a funny argument because artists lost their shit
| over photography too. Now anyone can make a portrait!
| Photography will kill art!
|
| Art is the biggest gate kept industry there is and I detest
| artists who believe only they are the chosen one.
|
| Art is human expression. We all have a right to create what
| we want with whatever tools we want. They can adapt or be
| left behind. No sympathy from me.
| witherk wrote:
| "Cameras are a tool of captial to fuck over human portrait
| artists"
|
| It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism,
| but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| That's an intentional misinterpretation, I think. I mention
| art as an economic activity because it's primarily
| professional artists that are harmed by the widespread
| adoption of this technology.
| indigo0086 wrote:
| They tried to use the labor theory early on by claiming,
| "real art takes hard work and time as opposed to the
| miniscule cpu hours computers use to make 'AI art". The
| worst thing AI brings to the table is amplifying these
| types of sentiments to control industry in their favor
| where they would otherwise be unheard and relegated to
| Instagram likes
| educaysean wrote:
| As a human artist I don't feel the same as you, and I somehow
| doubt that you care all that much about what we think
| anyways. You already made up your mind about the tech, so
| don't feel the need to protect us from "a tool of capital
| [sic]" to fortify your argument.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| My opinion is based on my interactions with my friends who
| are artists. I admit freely to caring less about what
| people I don't know say, in the absence of additional
| evidence.
| tester457 wrote:
| Among working human artists your opinion is in the
| minority. Most professionals are not a fan of this.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Yeah because their wage is inflated. Photographers were
| mad about digital cameras too. Womp womp.
| tester457 wrote:
| Inflated is not an apt descriptor of artist wages, those
| are known to be low.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| If you're independent selling paintings, sure. Designing
| packaging or something commercial? 4 hours of work a week
| for nearly 6 figures. I know a couple graphic designers
| and they don't do shit for what they're paid.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| And horse wages (some oats) were low when the car was
| invented. Yet they were still inflated. There used to be
| more horses than humans in this country. Couldn't even
| earn their keep when the Ford Model T came along.
| big_whack wrote:
| Do you make your living as an artist?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists
|
| So are the copyright and intellectual property laws that
| artists rely on. From my perspective, _you_ are the capital
| and _I_ am the one being fucked. So are you ready to abolish
| all that?
| CaptainFever wrote:
| Right. This new outrage is just the copyright owners
| realising that their power is not safe. Where is the
| outrage when self checkouts happened?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Copyright owners indeed. That's what these artists are.
| They're copyright owners. Monopolists. They _are_ the
| capital. Capitalism is all about owning property.
| Copyright is _intellectual_ property. Literally imaginary
| property. Ownership of information, of bits, of
| _numbers_. These artists are the literal epitome of
| capitalism. They enjoy state granted monopolies that last
| multiple human lifetimes. We 'll be long dead before
| their works enter the public domain. They _want_ it to be
| this way. They _want_ eternal rent seeking for themselves
| and their descendants. At least one artist has told me
| exactly that in discussions here on HN. They think it 's
| fair.
|
| They are the quintessential representation of capital.
| And they come here to ask us to "resist" the other forms
| of capital on principle.
|
| I'm sorry but... No. I'm gonna resist them instead. It's
| my sincere hope that this AI technology hammers in the
| last nails on the coffin of copyright and intellectual
| property as a whole. I want all the models to leak so
| that it becomes literally impossible to get rid of this
| technology no matter how much they hate it. I want it to
| progress so that we can run it on our own machines, so
| that it'll be so ubiquitous it can't be censored or
| banned no matter how much they lobby for it.
| NoraCodes wrote:
| > It's my sincere hope that this AI technology hammers in
| the last nails on the coffin of copyright and
| intellectual property as a whole.
|
| If it does, I will give you one thousand United States
| dollars, and you can quote me on thst whenever you like.
|
| More likely, big companies will retain control as they
| always have (via expensive lawyers), and individual
| artists will get screwed.
| Snow_Falls wrote:
| These AIs are not people. They do not learn.
| jfdbcv wrote:
| Define learn.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Define people.
| ozten wrote:
| The memetic weapons humans unleashed on other humans at art
| school to deter copying are brutal. Just wait until critique.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| "Sorry, this is not art, is AI generated trash."
| bluejekyll wrote:
| My issue with this line of argument is that it's
| anthropomorphizing machines. It's fine to compare how humans do
| a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they are
| very different from each other, organic vs hardware and
| software logic.
|
| First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally
| the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have
| to prove that it recalls information in the same way as humans.
| I don't think anyone would say these are things that we can
| prove, let alone believe they do. So what we get is comments
| like they are similar.
|
| What this means, is these systems will fall into different
| categories of law around copyright and free-use. What's clear
| is that there are people who believe that they are harmed by
| the use of their work in training these systems and it
| reproducing that work in some manner later on (the degree to
| which that single work or the corpus of their work influences
| that final product is an interesting question). If your terms
| of use/copyright/license says "you may not train on this data",
| then should that be protected in law? If a system like
| nightshade can effectively influence a training model enough to
| make it clear that something protected was used in its
| training, is that enough proof that the legal protections were
| broken?
| thfuran wrote:
| >First, you need to prove that generative AI works
| fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning.
| Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the
| same way as humans.
|
| No, you don't need to prove any of those things. They're
| irrelevant. You'd need to prove that the AI is itself morally
| (or, depending on the nature of the dispute, legally)
| equivalent to a human and therefore deserving of (or entitled
| to) the same rights and protections as a human. Since it is
| pretty indisputably the case that software is not currently
| legally equivalent to a human, you're stuck with the moral
| argument that it ought to be, but I think we're very far from
| a point where that position is warranted or likely to see
| much support.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| You don't even need to do that. Art is an act of
| ontological framing.
|
| Duchamp didn't need negotiate with the ceramic makers to
| make the Fountain into art.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > ou'd need to prove that the AI is itself morally (or,
| depending on the nature of the dispute, legally) equivalent
| to a human and therefore deserving of
|
| No you don't.
|
| A human using a computer to make art doesn't automatically
| lose their fair use rights as a human.
|
| > indisputably the case that software is not currently
| legally equivalent to a human
|
| Fortunately it is the human who uses the computer who has
| the legal rights to use computers in their existing process
| of fair use.
|
| Human brains or giving rights to computers has absolutely
| nothing to do with the rights of human to use a camera, use
| photoshop, or even use AI, on a computer.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Few people are claiming that the AI itself has the same
| rights as a human. They are arguing that a human with an AI
| has the same rights as a human who doesn't have an AI.
| huytersd wrote:
| Why do you have to prove that? There is no replication
| (except in very rare cases), how someone draws a line should
| not be copyrightable.
| pfist wrote:
| Therein lies the crux of the issue: AI is not "someone". We
| need to approach this without anthropomorphizing the AI.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| You are right, AI is nothing but a tool akin to a pen or
| a brush.
|
| If you draw Mickey Mouse with a pencil and you publish
| (and sell) the drawing who is getting the blame? Is the
| pencil infringing the copyright? No, it's you.
|
| Same with AI. There is nothijg wrong with using
| copyrighted works to train an algorithm, but if you
| generate an image and it contains copyrighted materials
| you are getting sued.
| ufocia wrote:
| But there is. You are arguably making unauthorized copies
| to train.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Unauthorized copies? If the images are published on the
| internet how is it downloading them "unauthorized"?
| __loam wrote:
| Publicly available doesn't mean you have a license to do
| whatever you like with the image. If I download an image
| and re-upload it to my own art station or sell prints of
| it, that is something I can physically do because the
| image is public, but I'm absolutely violating copyright.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| That's not an unautharized copy, it's unauthorized
| distribution. By the same metric me seeing the image and
| copying it by hand is also unauthorized copy (or
| reproduction is you will)
| xigoi wrote:
| IANAL, but I'm pretty sure copying an image by hand is
| copyright violation.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| So you cannot train your drawing skills by copying other
| people's artworks?
| xigoi wrote:
| You can do it in private, but you can't distribute the
| resulting image, let alone sell it.
| Almondsetat wrote:
| Then I don't really understand your original reply.
| Simply copying a publicly available image doesn't
| infringe anything (unless it was supposed to be
| private/secret). Doing stuff with that image in private
| still doesn't constitute infringement. Distribution does,
| but that wasn't the topic at hand
| xigoi wrote:
| You can train a neural network in private too and nobody
| will have a problem with that. The topic of discussion is
| commercial AI.
| huytersd wrote:
| If you are viewing the image on your browser on a
| website, you are making a local copy. That's not
| unauthorized.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Companies aren't someone, yet in the US we seem to give
| them rights of someone.
| ufocia wrote:
| They are someone in the eyes of the law. They just have a
| different set of rights.
| echelon wrote:
| We are machines. We just haven't evenly accepted it yet.
|
| Our biology is mechanical, and lay people don't possess an
| intuition about this. Unless you've studied molecular biology
| and biochemistry, it's not something that you can easily
| grasp.
|
| Our inventions are mechanical, too, and they're reaching
| increasing levels of sophistication. At some point we'll meet
| in the middle.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| 100% this. Labor and all these other concepts are outdated
| ways to interpret reality
|
| Humans are themselves mechanical so at the end of the day
| none of these issues actually matter
| Phiwise_ wrote:
| The first perceptron was explicitly designed to be a
| trainable visual pattern encoder. Zero assumptions about
| potential feelings of the ghost in the machine need to be
| made to conclude the program is probably doing what humans
| studying art _say they assume_ is happening in their head
| when you show both of them a series of previous artists '
| works. This argument is such a tired misdirection.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| What we actually need to prove is whether such technology is
| a net benefit to society all else is essentially hand waving.
| There is no natural right to poorly named intellectual
| property and even if there was such a matter would never be
| decided based on the outcome of a philosophical argument
| because we don't decide anything that way.
| withinboredom wrote:
| > such technology is a net benefit to society all else is
| essentially hand waving
|
| Some might have said this about cars ... yet, here we are.
| Cars are definitely the opposite, except for longer-
| distance travel.
| tqi wrote:
| How do you measure "benefit", and what does "net" actually
| mean?
| usrbinbash wrote:
| > that it's anthropomorphizing machines.
|
| No, it's not. It's merely pointing out the similarity between
| the process of training artists (by ingesting publicly
| available works) and ML models (which ingest publicly
| available works).
|
| > First, you need to prove that generative AI works
| fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning.
|
| Given that there is no comprehensive model for how humans
| actually learn things, that would be an unfeasible
| requirement.
| __loam wrote:
| What a reductive way to describe learning art. The
| similarities are merely surface level.
|
| > Given that there is no comprehensive model for how humans
| actually learn things, that would be an unfeasible
| requirement.
|
| That is precisely why we should not be making this
| comparison.
| jwells89 wrote:
| The way these ML models and humans operate are indeed quite
| different.
|
| Humans work by abstracting concepts in what they see, even
| when looking at the work of others. Even individuals with
| photographic memories mentally abstract things like lighting,
| body kinetics, musculature, color theory, etc and produce new
| work based on those abstractions rather than directly copying
| original work (unless the artist is intentionally
| plagiarizing). As a result, all new works produced by humans
| will have a certain degree of originality to them, regardless
| of influences due to differences in perception, mental
| abstraction processes, and life experiences among other
| factors. Furthermore, humans can produce art without any
| external instruction or input... give a 5 year old that's
| never been exposed to art and hasn't been shown how to make
| art a box of crayons and it's a matter of time before they
| start drawing.
|
| ML models are closer to highly advanced collage makers that
| take known images and blend them together in a way that's
| convincing at first glance, which is why it's not uncommon to
| see elements lifted directly from training data in the images
| they produce. They do not abstract the same way and by
| definition cannot produce anything that's not a blend of
| training data. Give them no data and they cannot produce
| anything.
|
| It's absolutely erroneous to compare them to humans, and I
| believe it will continue to be so until ML models evolve into
| something closer to AGI which can e.g. produce stylized work
| with nothing but photographic input that it's gathered in a
| robot body and artistic experimentation.
| shlubbert wrote:
| Beautifully put. I wish this nuance was more widely
| understood in the current AI debate.
| l33tman wrote:
| You're wrong in your concept of how AI/ML works. Even
| trivial 1980's neural networks generalize, it's the whole
| point of AI/ML or you'd just have a lookup-table (or, as
| you put it, something that copies and pastes images
| together).
|
| I've seen "infographics" spread by anti-AI people (or just
| attention-seekers) on Twitter that tries to "explain" that
| AI image generators blend together existing images, which
| is simply not true..
|
| It is however the case that different AI models (and the
| brain) generalize a bit differently. That is probably the
| case between different humans too. Not the least with for
| example like you say those with photographic memory,
| autists etc.
|
| What you call creativity in humans is just noise in
| combination with a boatload of exposure to multi-modal
| training data. Both aspects are already in the modern
| diffusion models. I would however ascribe a big edge in
| humans to what you normally call "the creative process"
| which can be much richer, like a process where you figure
| out what you lack to produce a work, go out and learn
| something new and specific, talk with your peers, listen to
| more noise.. stuff like that seems (currently) more
| difficult for AIs, though I guess plugins that do more
| iterative stuff like chatgpt's new plugins will appear in
| media generators as well eventually..
| jwells89 wrote:
| ML generalization and human abstraction are very
| different beasts.
|
| For example, a human artist would have an understanding
| of how line weight factors into stylization and _why_ it
| looks the way it does and be able to accurately apply
| these concepts to drawings of things they've never seen
| in that style (or even seen at all, if it's of something
| imaginary).
|
| The best an ML model can do is mimic examples of line art
| in the given style within its training data, the product
| of which will contain errors due to not understanding the
| underlying principles, especially if you ask it to draw
| something it hasn't seen in the style you're asking for.
| This is why generative AI needs such vast volumes of data
| to work well; it's going to falter in cases not well
| covered by the data. It's not learning concepts, only
| statistical probabilities.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > What this means, is these systems will fall into different
| categories of law around copyright and free-use.
|
| No they won't.
|
| A human who uses a computer as a tool (under all the previous
| qualifications of fair use) is still a human doing something
| in fair use.
|
| Adding a computer to the workflow of a human doesn't make
| fair use disappear.
|
| A human can use photoshop, in fair use. They can use a
| camera. They can use all sorts of machines.
|
| The fact that photoshop is not the same as a human brain is
| simply a completely unrelated non sequitur. Same applies to
| AI.
|
| And all the legal protections that are offered to someone who
| uses a regular computer, to use photoshop in fair use, are
| also extended to someone who uses AI in fair use.
| __loam wrote:
| Yet the copyright office has already stated that getting an
| AI to create an image for you does not have sufficient
| human authorship to be copyrighted. There's already a legal
| distinction here between this "tool" and tools like
| photoshop and cameras.
|
| It's also presumptive to assume that AI tools have these
| fair use protections when none of this has actually been
| decided in a court of law yet. There's still several
| unsettled cases here.
| z7 wrote:
| >My issue with this line of argument is that it's
| anthropomorphizing machines. It's fine to compare how humans
| do a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they
| are very different from each other, organic vs hardware and
| software logic.
|
| There's an entire branch of philosophy that calls these
| assumptions into question:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumanism
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism
|
| >Martin Heidegger viewed humanism as a metaphysical
| philosophy that ascribes to humanity a universal essence and
| privileges it above all other forms of existence. For
| Heidegger, humanism takes consciousness as the paradigm of
| philosophy, leading it to a subjectivism and idealism that
| must be avoided.
|
| >Processes of technological and non-technological
| posthumanization both tend to result in a partial "de-
| anthropocentrization" of human society, as its circle of
| membership is expanded to include other types of entities and
| the position of human beings is decentered. A common theme of
| posthumanist study is the way in which processes of
| posthumanization challenge or blur simple binaries, such as
| those of "human versus non-human", "natural versus
| artificial", "alive versus non-alive", and "biological versus
| mechanical".
| deadbeeves wrote:
| And? Even if neural networks learn the same way humans do, this
| is not an argument against taking measures against one's art
| being used as training data, since there are different
| implications if a human learns to paint the same way as another
| human vs. if an AI learns to paint the same way as a human. If
| the two were _exactly_ indistinguishable in their effects no
| one would care about AIs, not even researchers.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| But the 'different implications' only exist in the heads of
| said artists?
|
| EDIT: removed a part.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean when you say different
| implications existing is subjective, since they clearly
| aren't, but regardless of who has more say in general
| terms, the author of a work can decide how to publish it,
| and no one has more say than them on that subject.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| What are you saying?
|
| Of course it's subjective, e.g. 3 million years ago there
| were no 'different implications' whatsoever, of any kind,
| because there were no humans around to have thoughts like
| that.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| I'm using "implication" as a synonym of "effect". If a
| human learns to imitate your style, that human can make
| at most a handful of drawings in a single day. The only
| way for the rate of output to increase is for more humans
| to learn to imitate it. If an AI learns to imitate your
| style, the AI can be trivially copied to any number of
| computers and the maximum output rate is unbounded.
| Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but this
| difference in consequences is objective, and someone
| could be entirely justified in seeking to impede it.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Ah okay, I get your meaning now, I'll edit my original
| comment too.
|
| Though we already have an established precedent in-
| between, that of Photoshop allowing artists to be,
| easily, 10x faster then the best painters previously.
|
| i.e. Right now 'AI' artistry could be considered a turbo-
| Photoshop.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| Tool improvements only apply a constant factor to the
| effectiveness of learning. Creating a generative model
| applies an _unbounded_ factor to the effectiveness of
| learning because, as I said, the only limit is how much
| computing resources are available to humanity. If a
| single person was able to copy themselves at practically
| no cost and the copy retained all the knowledge of the
| original then the two situations would be equivalent, but
| that 's impossible. Having n people with the same skill
| multiplies the cost of learning by n. Having n instances
| of an AI with the same skill multiplies the cost of
| learning by 1.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Right, but the 'unbounded factor' is irrelevant because
| the output will quickly trend into random noise.
|
| And only the most interesting top few million art pieces
| will actually attract the attention of any concrete
| individual.
|
| For a current example, there's already billions of man-
| hours worth of AI spam writing, indexed by Google, that
| is likely not actually read by even a single person on
| Earth.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion. The fact
| remains that a machine being able to copy the artistic
| style of a human makes it so that anyone can produce
| output in the style of that human by just feeding the
| machine electricity. That inherently devalues the style
| the artist has painstakingly developed. If someone wants
| a piece of art in that artist's style they don't have to
| go to that artist, they just need to request the machine
| for what they want. Is the machine's output of low
| quality? Maybe. Will there be people for whom that low
| quality still makes them want to seek out the human? No
| doubt. It doesn't change the fact that the style is still
| devalued, nor that there exist artists who would want to
| prevent that.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| > Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion.
|
| It's just as much of an opinion, or as 'objective', as
| your prior statements.
|
| Your going to have to face up to the fact that just
| saying something is 'objective' doesn't necessarily mean
| all 8 billion people will agree that it is so.
| withinboredom wrote:
| And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in
| schools. Even if you argue that an AI is "human enough" the
| artists should still have the right to refuse their art being
| studies.
| deeviant wrote:
| > the artists should still have the right to refuse their
| art being studies.
|
| Why? That certainly isn't a right spelled out in either
| patents or copyrights, both of which are supposed to
| _support_ the development of arts and technology, not
| hinder it.
|
| If I discover a new mathematical formula, musical scale, or
| whatnot, should I be able to prevent others from learning
| about it?
| withinboredom wrote:
| It's called a license and you can make it almost
| anything. It doesn't even need to be spelled out, it can
| be verbal: "no, I won't let you have it"
|
| It's yours. That's literally what copyright is there to
| enforce.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| License doesn't matter if fair use applies.
|
| > Fair use allows reproduction and other uses of
| copyrighted works - without requiring permission from the
| copyright owner - under certain conditions. In many
| cases, you can use copyrighted materials for purposes
| such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
| (including multiple copies for classroom use),
| scholarship or research.
|
| Reminder that you can't own ideas, no matter what the law
| says.
|
| NOTE: This comment is copyrighted and provided to you
| under license only. By reading this comment, you agree to
| give me 5 billion dollars.
| withinboredom wrote:
| I'd love to see you try to enforce that license because
| it would only prove my point. You'd have to sue me; then
| I would point to the terms of service of this platform
| and point out that by using it, you have no license here.
|
| Fair use though, only applies as a legal defense because
| someone asserts you stole their work. Then ONLY the court
| decides whether or not you used it under fair use. You
| don't get to make that decision; you just get to decide
| whether to try and use it as a defense.
|
| Even if you actually did unfairly use copyrighted works,
| you would be stupid not to use that as a defense. Because
| maybe somebody on the jury agrees with you...
| dehrmann wrote:
| > And yet, some people don't even want their artwork
| studied in schools.
|
| You can either make it for yourself and keep it for
| yourself or you can put it out into the world for all to
| see, criticize, study, imitate, and admire.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| that's not how licensing work, be it art, software or
| just about anything else. We have some pretty well
| defined and differentiated rules what you can and cannot
| do, in particular commercially or in public, with someone
| else's work. If you go and study a work of fiction in a
| college class, unless that material is in the public
| domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy, you want
| to broadcast a movie in public, you're going to have to
| pay the rightsholder.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > If you go and study a work of fiction in a college
| class, unless that material is in the public domain,
| you're gonna have to pay for your copy,
|
| No you wont!
|
| It is only someone who distributes copies who can get in
| trouble.
|
| If instead of that you as an individual decide to study a
| piece of art or fiction, and you do no distribute copies
| of it to anyone, this is completely legal and you don't
| have to pay anyone for it.
|
| In addition to that, fair use protections apply
| regardless of what the creative works creator wants.
| withinboredom wrote:
| Making a profit off variations of someone's work isn't
| covered under fair use.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Gotcha.
|
| I wasn't talking about someone creating and selling
| copies of someone else's work, fortunately.
|
| So my point stands and your completely is in agreement
| with me that people are allowed to learn from other
| people's works. If someone wants to learn from someone
| else's work, that is completely legal no matter the
| licensing terms.
|
| Instead, it is only distributing copies that is not
| allowed.
| withinboredom wrote:
| AI isn't a human. It isn't "learning"; instead, it's
| encoding data so that it may be reproduced in combination
| with other things it has encoded.
|
| If I paint a painting in the style of Monet, then I would
| give that person attribution by stating that. Monet may
| have never painted my artwork, but it's still based on
| that person's work. If I paint anything, I can usually
| point to everything that inspired me to do so. AI can't
| do that (yet) and thus has no idea what it is doing. It
| is a printer that prints random parts of people's works
| with no attribution. And finally, it is distributing them
| to it's owner's customers.
|
| I actually hope that true AI comes to fruition at some
| point; when that happens I would be arguing the exact
| opposite. We don't have that yet, so this is just
| literally printing variations of other people's work.
| Don't believe me, try running an AI without training it
| on other people's work!
| dehrmann wrote:
| Right, but there's also fair use, and every use I
| mentioned could plausibly fall under that.
| withinboredom wrote:
| There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court
| (as a legal defense). Then, the court decides whether it
| is fair use or not. They may or may not agree with you.
| Only a court can determine what constitutes fair use (at
| least in the US).
|
| So, if you are doing something and asserting "fair use,"
| you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and
| prove it is not fair use.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > There's no such thing as fair use until you get to
| court (as a legal defense)
|
| Well the point is that it wouldn't go to court, as it
| would be completely legal.
|
| So yes, if nobody sues you, then you are completely in
| the clear and aren't in trouble.
|
| Thats what people mean by fair use. They mean that nobody
| is going to sue you, because the other person would lose
| the lawsuit, therefore your actions are safe and legal.
|
| > you are literally asking for someone to challenge you
| and prove it is not fair use.
|
| No, instead of that, the most likely circumstance is that
| nobody sues you, and you aren't in trouble at all, and
| therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.
| withinboredom wrote:
| > as it would be completely legal.
|
| Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued. "Fair
| use" is a legal defense in the theft of copyrighted
| works.
|
| > They mean that nobody is going to sue you, because the
| other person would lose the lawsuit
|
| That hasn't stopped people from suing anyone ever. If
| they want to sue you, they'll sue you.
|
| > and therefore you did nothing wrong and are safe.
|
| If you steal a pen from a store, it's still theft even if
| nobody catches you; or cares.
| sgift wrote:
| > Theft is never legal; that's why you can be sued.
|
| That's incorrect. You can be sued for anything. If it
| _is_ theft or something else or nothing is decided by the
| courts.
| withinboredom wrote:
| That is entirely my point. It can only be decided by the
| courts. This being a civil matter, it has to be brought
| up by a lawsuit. Thus, you have to be sued and it has to
| be decided by the courts.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| >the artists should still have the right to refuse their
| art being studies.
|
| No, that right doesn't exist. If you put your work of art
| out there for people to see, people will see it and learn
| from it, and be inspired by it. It's unavoidable. How could
| it possibly work otherwise?
|
| Artist A: You studied my work to produce yours, even when I
| asked people not to do that!
|
| Artist B: Prove it.
|
| What kind of evidence or argument could Artist A possibly
| provide to show that Artist B did what they're accusing
| them of, without being privy to the internal state of their
| mind. You're not talking about plagiarism; that's
| comparatively easy to prove. You're asking about merely
| _studying_ the work.
| withinboredom wrote:
| The right to not use my things exists everywhere,
| universally. Good people usually ask before they use
| something of someone else's, and the person being asked
| can say "no." How hard is that to understand? You might
| believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they
| can say whatever they want.
|
| Example:
|
| If you studied my (we will assume "unique") work and used
| it without my permission, then let us say I sue you. At
| that point, you would claim "fair use," and the courts
| would decide whether it was fair use (ask everyone who
| used a mouse and got sued for it in the last ~100 years).
| The court would either agree that you used my works under
| "fair use" ... or not. It would be up to how you
| presented it to the court, and humans would analyze your
| intent and decide.
|
| OR, I might agree it is fair use and not sue you.
| However, that weakens my standing on my copyright, so
| it's better for me to sue you (assuming I have the
| resources to do so when it is clearly fair use).
| deadbeeves wrote:
| >You might believe they don't have the right to say "no,"
| but they can say whatever they want.
|
| You have a right to say anything you want. Others aren't
| obligated do as you say just because you say it.
|
| >If you studied my (we will assume "unique") techniques
| and used them without my permission, then let us say I
| sue you. At that point, you would claim "fair use,"
|
| On what grounds would you sue me? You think my defense
| would be "fair use", so you must think my copying your
| style constitutes copyright infringement, and so you'd
| sue me for that. Well, no, I would not say "fair use",
| I'd say "artistic style is not copyrightable; copyright
| pertains to works, not to styles". There's even
| jurisprudence backing me up in the US. Apple tried to use
| Microsoft for copying the look-and-feel of their OS, and
| it was ruled to be non-copyrightable. Even if was so good
| that I was able to trick anyone into thinking that my
| painting of a dog carrying a tennis ball in his mouth was
| your work, if you've never painted anything like that you
| would have no grounds to sue me for copyright
| infringement.
|
| Now, usually in the artistic world it's considered poor
| manners to outright _copy_ another artist 's style, but
| if we're talking about rights and law, I'm sorry to say
| you're just wrong. And if we're talking about merely
| _studying_ someone 's work without copying it, that's not
| even frowned upon. Like I said, it's unavoidable. I don't
| know where you got this idea that anyone has the right to
| or is even capable of preventing this (beyond simply
| never showing it to anyone).
| withinboredom wrote:
| > Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you
| say it.
|
| Yeah, that's exactly why you'd get sued for copyright
| theft.
|
| > you must think my copying your style constitutes
| copyright infringement
|
| Autocorrect screwed that wording up. I've fixed it.
| deadbeeves wrote:
| I'm not sure what you've changed, but I'll reiterate: my
| copying your style is not fair use. Fair use applies to
| copyrighted things. A style cannot be copyrighted, so if
| you tried to sue me for infringing upon the copyright of
| your artistic style, your case would be dismissed. It
| would be as invalid as you trying to sue me for
| distributing illegal copies of someone else's painting.
| Legally you have as much ownership of your artistic style
| as of that other person's painting.
| dorkwood wrote:
| Is it strange to you that cars and pedestrians are both subject
| to different rules? They both utilise friction and gravity to
| travel along the ground. I'm curious if you see a difference
| between them, and if you could describe what it is.
| ta8645 wrote:
| Both cars and pedestrians can be videotaped in public,
| without asking for their explicit permission. That video can
| be manipulated by a computer to produce an artwork that is
| then put on public display. No compensation need be offered
| to anyone.
| estebank wrote:
| > Both cars and pedestrians can be videotaped in public,
| without asking for their explicit permission.
|
| This is not universally true. Legislation is different from
| place to place.
| ta8645 wrote:
| Hardly the point. The same can be said for road rules
| between vehicles and pedestrians, for example in major
| Indian cities, it's pretty much a free-for-all.
| estebank wrote:
| My point is that in a lot of places in the US you can
| point a video camera at the street and record. In
| Germany, you can't. The law in some locales makes a
| distinction between manual recording (writing or drawing
| your surroundings) and mechanized recording
| (photographing or filming). Scalability of an action is
| taken into consideration on whether something is ok to do
| or not.
| ta8645 wrote:
| That has no bearing at all on the issue at hand. The same
| can be said of the original argument that started this
| thread.
| thfuran wrote:
| You think scalability isn't relevant to the difference
| between a person doing something by hand or with software
| operating on the entire internet?
| krapp wrote:
| Human beings and LLMs are essentially equivalent, and their
| processes of "learning" are essentially equivalent, yet human
| artists are not affected by tools like Nightshade. Odd.
| danielbln wrote:
| As another posted out, modern models like BLIP or GPT4V
| aren't affected by this either.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Humans don't fall for optical illusions? News to me.
| krapp wrote:
| Nightshade isn't an optical illusion. It doesn't operate
| within LLMs in any way equivalent to the way optical
| illusion do in humans. A human who sees an optical illusion
| does not have their perception nor ability to function
| affected in the same way as an LLM.
|
| I realize you and people like yourself have a lot invested
| in furthering the narrative that LLMs are equivalent to
| human beings in every relevant sense - especially any
| _legal_ sense which might prevent you from profiting on the
| copyrighted material that LLMs are trained on.
|
| But it's a specious argument. LLMs are not human. They
| don't think. They don't see. They don't reason. They aren't
| entities possessed of self-awareness. The fact that one
| cannot "poison" human cognition the way one can "poison"
| LLM models is only one of numerous examples of that fact.
| LLMs are software, not people.
|
| And no, it isn't incumbent upon me to prove any of these
| claims. It is incumbent upon you and those like yourself
| who pollute every thread about AI with such claims to back
| them up with even ordinary proof.
|
| But you won't, because you can't. Such proof doesn't exist,
| whereas evidence to the contrary exists in abundance.
| Perhaps you're simply naive and assume that because LLMs
| are capable of generating what appears to be intelligent
| output, it must therefore be intelligent. Or perhaps you're
| one of the many people who have a vested interest in
| ensuring that LLMs are granted the same legal status as
| human beings, so that you can make stronger copyright
| claims on their output.
|
| It doesn't matter. Every single time this argument comes up
| people will chime in with the same tedious false
| equivalencies. But it isn't clever, it's just getting
| annoying.
| adr1an wrote:
| It's not the learning per se what's concerning here but the
| ease of production (e.g. generate thousands of images in a day)
| analog31 wrote:
| This seems more like looking at other artists and being totally
| incapacitated by some little touch in the painting you're
| looking at.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| The Nam-shub of Hockney?
| bakugo wrote:
| A human artist cannot look at and memorize 100000 pictures in a
| day, and cannot paint 100000 pictures in a day.
|
| I am SO tired of this non-argument
| ufocia wrote:
| A human artist does not need to look at and memorize 100000
| pictures in any span of time, period. Current AI does.
|
| We needed huge amounts of human labor to fund and build
| Versailles. I'm sure many died as a result. Now we have
| machines that save many of those lives and labor.
|
| What's your non-argument?
| MattRix wrote:
| The argument is that the humans producing the work should
| be _willing_ participants. I don't think that's too much to
| ask for.
| amelius wrote:
| You might as well compare a Xerox copier to a human.
| schmichael wrote:
| This is not one artist inspiring another. This is all artists
| providing their work for free to immensely capitalized
| corporations for the corporations sole profit.
|
| People keep making metaphors as if the AI is an entity in this
| transaction: it's not! The AI is only the mechanism by which
| corporations launder IP.
| thfuran wrote:
| >This is all artists providing their work for free to
| immensely capitalized corporations for the corporations sole
| profit.
|
| No, the artists would be within their rights to do that if
| they chose to. This is corporations taking all the work of
| all artists regardless of the terms under which it was
| provided.
| itronitron wrote:
| Art schools don't teach people how to paint in different
| artistic styles. They teach materials and technique.
| jurynulifcation wrote:
| Artists learning to innovate a trade defend their trade from
| incursion by bloodthirsty, no-value-adding vampiric middle men
| attempting to cut them out of the loop.
| __loam wrote:
| Human learning =/= machine learning
|
| Most artists are happy to see more people getting into art and
| joining the community. More artists means the skills of this
| culture get passed down to the next generation.
|
| Obviously a billion dollar corporation using their work to
| create an industrial tool designed to displace them is very
| different.
| bradleyishungry wrote:
| This is such a nothing argument. Yes, new artists are inspired
| by other artists and sometimes make art similar to others, but
| a huge part of learning and doing art is to find a unique
| style.
|
| But that's not even the important part of the argument. A lot
| of artists work for commission, and are hired for their style.
| If an AI can be trained without explicit permission from their
| images, they lose work because a user can just prompt "in the
| style of".
|
| There's no real great solution, outside of law, because the
| possibility of doing that is already here. But I've seen this
| argument so much and it's just low effort
| gumballindie wrote:
| This is excellent. We need more tools like this, for text content
| as well. For software we need GPL 4 with ML restrictions (make
| your model open source or not at all). Potentially even DRM for
| text.
| gmerc wrote:
| Doing the work to increase OpenAIs moat
| Drakim wrote:
| Obviously AIs can just train on images that aren't poisoned.
| jsheard wrote:
| Is it possible to reliably detect whether an image is
| poisoned? If not then it achieves the goal of punishing
| entities which indiscriminately harvest data.
| Drakim wrote:
| It's roughly in the same spot as reliably detecting if you
| have permission to use the image for your data training set
| in the first place.
|
| If it doesn't matter, then neither does the poisoning
| matter.
| Kalium wrote:
| You can use older images, collected from before the
| "poisoning" software was released. Then you don't have to.
|
| This, of course, assumes that "poisoning" actually works.
| Glaze and Nightshade and similar are very much akin to the
| various documented attacks on facial recognition systems.
| The attack does not exploit some fundamental flaw in how
| the systems work, but specific characteristics in a given
| implementation and version.
|
| This matters because it means that later versions and
| models will inevitably not have the same vulnerabilities.
| The result is that any given defensive transformation
| should be expected to be only narrowly effective.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| AI's have learned much tougher things. You just need a
| small data set of poisoned images to learn it's features.
| Quanttek wrote:
| This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they
| should license the content they use for the training data. As
| long as there are not sufficient legal protections and the
| EU/Congress do not act, tools like these can serve as a stopgap
| and maybe help increase pressure on policymakers
| Kuinox wrote:
| > they should license the content they use for the training
| data
|
| You mean like OpenAI and Adobe ?
|
| Only the free and open source models didn't licensed any
| content for the training data.
| galleywest200 wrote:
| Adobe is training off of images stored in their cloud
| systems, per their Terms of Service.
|
| OpenAI has provided no such documentation or legal
| guarantees, and it is still quite possible they scraped all
| sorts of copyright materials.
| devmor wrote:
| There is in fact, an extreme amount of circumstantial
| evidence that they intentionally and knowingly violated
| copyright en mass. It's been quite a popular subject in
| tech news the past couple weeks.
| Kuinox wrote:
| > OpenAI has provided no such documentation
|
| OpenAI and Shutterstocks publicly announced their
| collaboration, Shutterstocks sells AI generated images,
| generated with OpenAI models.
| luma wrote:
| Google scrapes copyrighted material every day and then
| presents that material to users in the form of excerpts,
| images, and entire book pages. This has been ruled OK by
| the courts. Scraping copyrighted information is not illegal
| or we couldn't have search engines.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on
| people's art without permission, and you can type their
| name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of
| their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not
| really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies
| selling the thing I described right now.
| luma wrote:
| That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work.
| It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the
| style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting
| painting.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or
| physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of
| any kind.
| luma wrote:
| If a human isn't violating the law when doing that thing,
| then how is the machine violating the law when it cannot
| even hold copyright itself?
| kevingadd wrote:
| I'm not sure how to explain this any clearer: Humans and
| machines are legally distinct. Machines don't have the
| rights that humans have.
| Ukv wrote:
| Fair Use is the relevant protection and is not specific
| to manual creation. Traditional algorithms (e.g: the
| snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search
| engines) are already covered by it.
| estebank wrote:
| In some locales sitting on the street writing down a list
| of people coming and going is legal, but leaving a camera
| pointed at the street isn't. Legislation like that makes
| a distinction between an action by a person (which has
| bounds on scalability) and mechanized actions (that do
| not).
| ufocia wrote:
| What's not prohibited is allowed, at least in the US.
| ufocia wrote:
| Scraping is only legal if it's temporary and
| transformational. If Google started selling the scrapped
| images it would be a different story.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| There is a small difference between any and all. OpenAI
| certainly didn't licence all of the image they use for
| training.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| source for OpenAI paying anyone a dime? don't you think that
| would set a precedent that everyone else deserves their cut?
| popohauer wrote:
| It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against
| OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that
| AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it
| was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement
| on its head.
| luma wrote:
| If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently
| transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright
| law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping
| for.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
| kevingadd wrote:
| "sufficiently transformational" is carrying a lot of water
| here. At minimum it would cloud the issue and might expose
| anyone using AI to lawsuits where they'd potentially have
| to defend each generated image.
| ufocia wrote:
| Sufficiently transformational only applies to
| copyrightability, but AI works are not copyrightable
| under current US law, so it's a non-issue.
| popohauer wrote:
| Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked.
| Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's
| not as upending as I thought it could be.
| ufocia wrote:
| Not if it is AI generated. So far only humans can be
| original enough to warrant copyrights, at least in the US .
|
| BTW, the right to prepare derivative works belongs to the
| copyright holder of the reference work.
|
| I doubt that many AI works are in fact derivative works.
| Sure, some bear enough similarity, but a gross majority
| likely doesn't.
| Kuinox wrote:
| > More specifically, we assume the attacker:
|
| > * can inject a small number of poison data (image/text pairs)
| to the model's training dataset
|
| I think thoes are bad assumption, labelling is more and more done
| by some labelling AI.
| popohauer wrote:
| I'm glad to see tools like Nightshade starting to pop up to
| protect the real life creativity of artists. I like AI art, but I
| do feel conflicted about its potential long term effects towards
| a society that no longer values authentic creativity.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Is the existence of the AI tool not itself a product of
| authentic creativity? Does eliminating barriers to image
| generation not facilitate authentic creativity?
| 23B1 wrote:
| No, it facilitates commoditization. Art - real art - is
| fundamentally a human-to-human transaction. Once everyone can
| fire perfectly-rendered perfectly-unique pieces of 'art' at
| each other, it'll just become like the internet is today:
| filled with extremely low-value noise.
|
| Enjoy the short term novelty while you can.
| fulladder wrote:
| This is the right prediction. Once machines can generate
| visual art, people will simply stop valuing it. We may see
| increased interest in other forms of art, e.g., live
| performance art like theater. It's hard to predict exactly
| how it'll play out, but once something becomes cheap to
| produce and widely available, it loses its luster for
| connoisseurs and then gradually loses its luster for
| everybody else too.
| eddd-ddde wrote:
| Isn't this just teaching the models how to better understand
| pictures as humans do? As long as you feed them content that
| looks good to a human, wouldn't they improve in creating such
| content?
| k__ wrote:
| How long will this work?
| kevingadd wrote:
| It's an arms race the bigger players will win, and it
| undermines the quality of the images. But it feels natural that
| artists would want to do _something_ since they don 't feel
| like anyone else is protecting them right now.
| devmor wrote:
| Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology when it is a
| non-issue to any model by simply acquiring only training data you
| have permission to use.
| krapp wrote:
| The reason people are arguing against this technology is that
| no one is using them in the way you describe. They actually
| wouldn't even be economically viable in that case.
| devmor wrote:
| If it is not economically viable for you to be ethical, then
| you do not deserve economic success.
|
| Anyone arguing against this technology following the line of
| reasoning you present is operating in adverse to the good of
| society. Especially if their only motive is economic
| viability.
| krapp wrote:
| I feel like you read my comment and interpreted it in
| exactly the opposite way it was intended because I agree
| with you, and you're making the same point I was trying to
| make.
| Ukv wrote:
| I think people 100% have the right to use this on their images,
| but:
|
| > simply acquiring only training data you have permission to
| use
|
| Currently it's generally infeasible to obtain licenses at the
| required scale.
|
| When attempting to develop a model that can describe photos for
| visually impaired users, I had even tried to reach out to
| obtain a license from Getty. They repeatedly told me that they
| don't license images for machine learning[0].
|
| I think it's easy to say "well too bad, it doesn't deserve to
| exist" if you're just thinking about DALL-E 3, but there's a
| huge number of positive and far less-controversial applications
| of machine learning that benefit from web-scale pretraining and
| foundation models - spam filtering, tumour segmentation, voice
| transcription, language translation, defect detection, etc.
|
| [0]: https://i.imgur.com/iER0BE2.png
| ultimoo wrote:
| would it have been that hard to include a sample photo and how it
| looks with the nightshade filter side by side in a 3 page
| document describing how it would look in great detail
| jamesu wrote:
| Long-term I think the real problem for artists will be
| corporations generating their own high quality targeted datasets
| from a cheap labor pool, completely outcompeting them by a
| landslide.
| ufocia wrote:
| It will democratize art.
| 23B1 wrote:
| then it won't be art anymore, it'll just be mountains of shit
|
| sorta like what the laptop did for writing
| jdietrich wrote:
| In the short-to-medium term, we're seeing huge improvements in
| the data efficiency of generative models. We haven't really
| started to see self-training in diffusion models, which could
| improve data efficiency by orders of magnitude. Current models
| are good at generalisation and are getting better at an
| incredible pace, so any efforts to limit the progress of AI by
| restricting access to training data is a speedbump rather than
| a roadblock.
| msp26 wrote:
| >Like Glaze, Nightshade is computed as a multi-objective
| optimization that minimizes visible changes to the original
| image.
|
| It's still noticeably visible.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Yeah, I've seen multiple artists complain about how glazing
| reduces image quality. It's very noticeable. That seems like an
| unavoidable problem given how AI is trained on images right
| now.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Remember when the music industry tried to use technology to stop
| music pirating?
|
| This will work about as well...
|
| Oh, I forget, fighting music pirating was considered an evil
| thing to do on HN. "pirating is not stealing, is copyright
| infringement", right? Unlike training neural nets on internet
| content which of course is "stealing".
| kevingadd wrote:
| FWIW, you're the only use of the word "steal" in this comment
| thread.
|
| Many people would in fact argue that training AI on people's
| art without permission is copyright infringement, since the
| thing it (according to detractors) does is infringe copyright
| by generating knockoffs of people's work.
|
| You will see some people use the term "stealing" but they're
| usually referring to how these AIs are sold/operated by for-
| profit companies that want to make money off artists' work
| without compensating them. I think it's not unreasonable to
| call that "stealing" even if the legal definition doesn't
| necessarily fit 100%.
|
| The music industry is also not really a very good comparison
| point for independent artists... there is no Big Art equivalent
| that has a stranglehold on the legislature and judiciary like
| the RIAA/MPAA do.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| A more apt comparison is sampling.
|
| AI is sampling other's works.
|
| Musicians can and do sample. They also obtain clearance for
| commercial works, pay royalties if required, AND credit the
| samples if required.
|
| AI "art" does none of that.
| Minor49er wrote:
| Musicians overwhelmingly do not even attempt to clear
| samples. This also isn't a great comparison since samples are
| taken directly out of the audio, not turned into a part of a
| pattern used to generate new sounds like what AI generators
| do with images
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Commercial musicians do not?
|
| You sure about that?
|
| Entire legal firm empires have been built on the licensing,
| negotiations, and fees that make up the industry.
|
| I'm ain't talking about some dude on YouTube or Soundcloud.
| Few people care about some rando on Soundcloud. Those moles
| aren't big enough to whack. Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer were.
| OpenAI is as well.
|
| There's even a company that specializes in sample
| clearance: https://sampleclearance.com
|
| More info: https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-
| advice/sample-clearance
|
| Also:
|
| >not turned into a part of a pattern used to generate new
| sounds like what AI generators do with images
|
| This is demonstrably false. Multiple individuals have
| repeatedly been able to extract original images from AI
| generators.
|
| Here's one-- Extracting Training Data from Diffusion Models
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
|
| Text, too: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.17035
| xigoi wrote:
| The difference is that "pirating" is mostly done by individuals
| for private use, whereas training is mostly done by
| megacorporations looking to make more money.
| 542458 wrote:
| This seems to introduce levels of artifacts that many artists
| would find unacceptable:
| https://twitter.com/sini4ka111/status/1748378223291912567
|
| The rumblings I'm hearing are that this a) barely works with
| last-gen training processes b) does not work at all with more
| modern training processes (GPT-4V, LLaVA, even BLIP2 labelling
| [1]) and c) would not be especially challenging to mitigate
| against even should it become more effective and popular. The
| Authors' previous work, Glaze, also does not seem to be very
| effective despite dramatic proclamations to the contrary, so I
| think this might be a case of overhyping an academically
| interesting but real-world-impractical result.
|
| [1]: Courtesy of /u/b3sn0w on Reddit: https://imgur.com/cI7RLAq
| https://imgur.com/eqe3Dyn https://imgur.com/1BMASL4
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Yeah. At worst a simple img2img diffusion step would mitigate
| this, but just eyeballing the examples, traditional denoisers
| would probably do the job?
|
| Denoising is probably a good preprocessing step anyway.
| gedy wrote:
| Maybe it's more about "protecting" images that artists want to
| publicly share to advertise work, but it's not appropriate for
| final digital media, etc.
| sesm wrote:
| In short, anti-AI watermark.
| pimlottc wrote:
| I can't really see any difference in those images on the
| Twitter example when viewing it on mobile
| pxc wrote:
| I don't have great vision, but me neither. They're
| indistinguishable to me (likewise on mobile).
| milsorgen wrote:
| It took me a minute too but on the fast you can see some
| blocky artifacting by the elbow and a few spots elsewhere
| like curtain upper left.
| Keyframe wrote:
| look at the green drapes to the right, or any large uniform
| colored space. It looks similar to bad JPEG artifacts.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| I didn't see it immediately either, but there's a _ton_ of
| added noise. The most noticeable bit for me was near the
| standing person 's bent elbow, but there's a lot more that
| becomes obvious when flipping back and forth between browser
| tabs instead of swiping on Twitter.
| vhcr wrote:
| The animation when you change images makes it harder to see
| the difference, I opened the three images each in its own tab
| and the differences are more apparent when you change between
| each other instantly.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| One of the few times a 'blink comparator' feature in image
| viewers would be useful!
| charcircuit wrote:
| The gradient on the bat has blocks in it instead of being
| smooth.
| josefx wrote:
| Something similar to jpeg artifacts on any surface with a
| normally smooth color gradient, in some cases rather
| significant.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| The artifacts are a non-issue. It's intended images with
| nightshade are intended to be silently scrapped and avoid human
| filtering.
| minimaxir wrote:
| The artifacts are extremely an issue for artists who don't
| want their images damaged for the possibility of them not
| being trained by AI.
|
| It's a bad tradeoff.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Nightshaded images aren't intended for portfolios. They're
| mean to be uploaded enmasse and scraped later.
| AJ007 wrote:
| To where? A place no one sees them and they aren't
| scraped?
| filleduchaos wrote:
| I think the point is that they're akin to a watermark.
|
| Even before the current AI boom, plenty of artists have
| wanted to _showcase_ their work /prove that it exists
| without necessarily making the highest quality original
| file public.
| Diti wrote:
| Most serious artists I know (at least in my community)
| release their high-quality images on Patreon or similar.
| pgeorgi wrote:
| For example in accounts on image sites that are exposed
| to suspected scrapers but not to others. Scrapers will
| still see the real data, but they'll also run into stuff
| designed to mix up the training process.
| the8472 wrote:
| do you mean scrapped or scraped?
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| scraped
| TenJack wrote:
| Wonder if the AI companies are already so far ahead that they can
| use their AI to detect and avoid any poisoning?
| alentred wrote:
| With this "solution" it looks like the world of art enters the
| cat-and-mouse game the ad blockers were playing for the last
| decade or two.
| isodev wrote:
| I just tested it with Azure AI image classification and it
| worked - so this cat is yet to adapt to the mouse's latest
| idea.
|
| I still feel it is absolutely wrong to roam around the internet
| and scrape images (without consent) in order to power one's
| cash cow AI. I hope more methods to protect artworks (including
| audio and other formats) become more accessible.
| KTibow wrote:
| I might be missing something because I don't know much about
| the architecture of either Nightshade or AI art generators, but
| I wonder if you could try to have a GAN-like architecture (an
| extra model trying to trick the model) for the part of the
| generator that labels images to build resistance to Nightshade-
| like filters.
| the8472 wrote:
| It doesn't even have to be a full GAN, you only need to train
| the discriminator side to filter out the data. Clean
| reference images + Nightshade would be the generator side.
| ukuina wrote:
| Won't a simple downsample->upsample be the antidote?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| How do you train your upsampler? (Also: why are you seeking to
| provide an "antidote"?)
| spookie wrote:
| Why would you train one?
| MrNeon wrote:
| >why are you seeking to provide an "antidote"
|
| To train a model on the data.
| krapp wrote:
| Get permission to use the data.
| MrNeon wrote:
| Got all the permission I need when it was put on a
| publicly accessible server.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| That's not really how consent works.
|
| I hope this is a special exception you've made, rather
| than your general approach towards interacting with your
| fellows.
| MrNeon wrote:
| That is how consent works.
| xigoi wrote:
| That's not how copyright works.
| MrNeon wrote:
| Tell me where it says training a model is infringing on
| copyright.
| xigoi wrote:
| How is creating a derivative of someone's work and
| selling it not copyright infringement?
| MrNeon wrote:
| Who said anything about creating a derivative? Surely you
| don't mean to say that any image created with a model
| trained on copyrighted data counts as a derivative of it.
| Edit: Or worse, that the model itself is derivative,
| something so different from an image must count as
| transformative work!.
|
| Also who said anything about selling?
| xigoi wrote:
| The model itself is a derivative. And it's not really
| that transformative, it's basically the input data
| compressed with highly lossy compression.
|
| > Also who said anything about selling?
|
| All the corporations that are offering AI as a paid
| service?
| klyrs wrote:
| > why are you seeking to provide an "antidote"
|
| I think it's worthwhile for such discussion to happen in the
| open. If the tool can be defeated through simple means, it's
| better for everybody to know that, right?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| It would be better for _artists_ to know that. But Hacker
| News is not a forum of visual artists: it 's a forum of
| hackers, salaried programmers, and venture capitalists.
| Telling the bad guys about vulnerabilities isn't
| responsible disclosure.
|
| Causing car crashes isn't hard (https://xkcd.com/1958/).
| That doesn't mean Car Crash(tm) International(r)'s
| decision-makers know how to do it: they probably don't even
| know what considerations go into traffic engineering, or
| how anyone can just buy road paint from that shop over
| there.
|
| It's everybody's responsibility to keep Car Crash(tm)
| International(r) from existing; but failing that, it's
| everybody's responsibility to not tell them how to cause
| car crashes.
| MrNeon wrote:
| The tears of artists and copyright evangelists is so
| sweet.
| ukuina wrote:
| I apologize. I was trying to respond to inflammatory language
| ("poison") with similarly hyperbolic terms, and I should know
| better than to do that.
|
| Let me rephrase: Would AI-powered upscaling/downscaling (not
| a simple deterministic mathematical scaling) not defeat this
| at a conceptual level?
| jdiff wrote:
| No, it's resistant to transformation. Rotation, cropping,
| scaling, the image remains poisonous. The only antidote known
| currently is active artist cooperation.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| Or Img2Img.
| xg15 wrote:
| I wonder how this tool works if it's actually model independent.
| My understanding so far was that in principle each possible model
| has _some_ set of pathological inputs for which the
| classification will be different than what a user sees - but that
| this set is basically different for each model. So did they
| actually manage to build an "universal" poison? If yes, how?
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| To protect an individual's image property rights from image
| generating AI's -- wouldn't it be simpler for the IETF (or other
| standards-producing group) to simply create an
|
| _AI image exclusion standard_
|
| , similar to _" robots.txt"_ -- which would tell an AI data-
| gathering web crawler that a given image or set of images -- was
| off-limits for use as data?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots.txt
|
| https://www.ietf.org/
| potatolicious wrote:
| Entities training models have no incentive to follow such
| metadata. If we accept the premise that "more input -> better
| models" then there's every reason to ignore non-legally-binding
| metadata requests.
|
| Robots.txt survived because the use of it to gatekeep valuable
| goodies was never widespread. Most sites _want_ to be indexed,
| most URLs excluded by the robots file are not of interest to
| the search engine anyway, and use of robots to prevent crawling
| actually interesting pages is marginal.
|
| If there was ever genuine uptake in using robots to gatekeep
| the _really good stuff_ search engines would 've stopped
| respecting it pretty much immediately - it isn't legally
| binding after all.
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| >Entities training models have no incentive to follow such
| metadata. If we accept the premise that "more input -> better
| models" then there's every reason to ignore non-legally-
| binding metadata requests.
|
| Name two entities that were asked to stop using a given
| individuals' images that failed to stop using them after the
| stop request was issued.
|
| >Robots.txt survived because the use of it to gatekeep
| valuable goodies was never widespread. Most sites want to be
| indexed, most URLs excluded by the robots file are not of
| interest to the search engine anyway, and use of robots to
| prevent crawling actually interesting pages is marginal.
|
| Robots.txt survived because it was a "digital signpost" a
| "digital sign" -- sort of like the way you might put a
| "Private Property -- No Trespassing" sign in your yard.
|
| Most moral/ethical/lawful people -- will obey that sign.
|
| Some might not.
|
| But the some that might not -- probably constitute about a
| 0.000001% minority of the population, whereas the majority
| that do -- probably constitute about 99.99999% of the
| population.
|
| "Robots.txt" is a sign -- much like a road sign is.
|
| People can obey them -- or they can ignore them -- but they
| can ignore them only at their own peril!
|
| It's a sign which provides a hint for what the right thing to
| do in a certain set of circumstances -- which is what the
| _Law_ is; which is what the majority of _Laws_ are.
|
| People can obey them -- or they can choose to ignore them --
| but _only at their own peril!_
|
| Most will choose to obey them. Most will choose to "take the
| hint", proverbially speaking!
|
| A few might not -- but that doesn't mean the majority won't!
|
| >If there was ever genuine uptake in using robots to gatekeep
| the really good stuff search engines would've stopped
| respecting it pretty much immediately - it isn't legally
| binding after all.
|
| Again, _name two entities that were asked to stop using a
| given individuals ' images that failed to stop using them
| after the stop request was issued._
| xg15 wrote:
| And then what? The scrapers themselves already happily ignore
| copyright, they won't be inclined to obey a no-ai.txt. So
| someone would have to enforce the standard. Currently I see no
| organisation who would be willing to do this or even just
| technologically able - as even just detecting such scrapers is
| an extremely hard task.
|
| Nevertheless, I hope that at some not-so-far point in the
| future there will be more legal guidance about this kind of
| stuff, i.e. it will be made clear that scraping violates
| copyright. This still won't solve the problem of detectability
| but it would at least increase the risk of scrapers, _should_
| they be caught.
| peter_d_sherman wrote:
| >The scrapers themselves already happily ignore copyright,
| they won't be inclined to obey a no-ai.txt.
|
| Name two entities that were asked to stop using a given
| individuals' images that failed to stop using them after the
| stop request was issued.
|
| >Currently I see no organisation who would be willing to do
| this or even just technologically able - as even just
| detecting such scrapers is an extremely hard task.
|
| // Part of Image Web Scraper For AI Image Generator ingestion
| psuedocode:
|
| if fileExists("no-ai.txt") { // Abort image
| scraping for this site -- move on to the next site
|
| } else { // Continue image scraping for this
| site
|
| };
|
| See? Nice and simple!
|
| Also -- let me ask you this -- what happens to the
| intellectual property (or just plain property) rights of
| Images on the web _after_ the author dies? Or say, 50 years
| (or whatever the legal copyright timeout is) after the author
| dies?
|
| Legal grey area perhaps?
|
| Also -- what about Images that exist in other legal
| jurisdictions -- i.e., other countries?
|
| How do we know what set of laws are to apply to a given
| image?
|
| ?
|
| Point is: If you're going to endorse and/or construct a legal
| framework (and have it be binding -- keep in mind you're
| going to have to traverse the legal jurisdictions of many
| countries, _many countries_!) -- you might as well consider
| such issues.
|
| Also -- at least in the United States, we have Juries that
| can override any Law (Separation of Powers) -- that is, that
| which is considered "legally binding" -- may not be quite so
| "legally binding" if/when properly explained to a proper jury
| in light of extenuating (or just plain other) circumstances!
|
| So kindly think of these issues prior to making all-
| encompasing proposals as to what you think should be "legally
| binding" or not.
|
| I comprehend that you are just trying to solve a problem; I
| comprehend and empathize; but the problem might be a bit
| greater than you think, and there might be one if not
| serveral unexplored partial/better (since no one solution,
| legal or otherwise, will be all-encompassing) solutions --
| because the problem is so large in scope -- but all of these
| issues must be considered in parallel -- or errors, present
| or future will occur...
| xg15 wrote:
| > _Part of Image Web Scraper For AI Image Generator
| ingestion psuedocode:..._
|
| Yes, and who is supposed to run that code?
|
| > _Name two entities that were asked to stop using a given
| individuals ' images that failed to stop using them after
| the stop request was issued._
|
| Github? OpenAI?[1] Stable Diffusion?[2] LAION?[3] What do
| you think why there are currently multiple high-profile
| lawsuits ongoing about exactly that topic?
|
| Besides, that's not how things work. Training a foundation
| model takes months and currently costs a fortune in
| hardware and power - and once the model is trained, there
| is, as of now, no way to remove individual images from the
| model without restraining. So in practical terms it's
| impossible to remove an image if it has already been
| trained on.
|
| So the better question would be, name two entities who have
| ignored an artist's request to not include their image when
| they encountered it the first time. It's still a trick
| question though because the point is that scraping happens
| in private - we can't know which images were scraped
| without access to the training data. The one indication
| that it was probably scraped is if a model manages to
| reproduce it verbatim - which is the basis for some of the
| above lawsuits.
|
| [1] https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23446821/microsoft-
| openai...
|
| [2] https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/6/23587393/ai-art-
| copyright-...
|
| [3] https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Stock-photographer-
| sues-AI-...
| GaggiX wrote:
| These methods like Glaze usually works by taking the original
| image chaging the style or content and then apply LPIPS loss on
| an image encoder, the hope is that if they can deceive a CLIP
| image encoder it would confuse also other models with different
| architecture, size and dataset, while changing the original image
| as little as possible so it's not too noticeable to a human eye.
| To be honest I don't think it's a very robust technique, with
| this one they claim that a model instead of seeing for example a
| cow on grass the model will see a handbag, if someone has access
| to GPT4-V I want to see if it's able to deceive actually big
| image encoders (usually more aligned to the human vision).
|
| EDIT: I have seen a few examples with GPT-4 V and how I imagine
| it wasn't deceived, I doubt this technique can have any impact on
| the quality of the models, the only impact that this could
| potentially have honestly is to make the training more robust.
| garg wrote:
| Each time there is an update to training algorithms and in
| response poisoning algorithms, artists will have to re-glaze, re-
| mist, and re-nightshade all their images?
|
| Eventually I assume the poisoning artifacts introduced in the
| images will be very visible to humans as well.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| What the article doesn't illustrate is that it destroys fine
| detail in the image, even in the thumbnails of the reference
| paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13828.pdf
|
| Also... Maybe I am naive, but it seems rather trivial to work
| around with a quick prefilter? I don't know if tradition
| denoising would be enough, but worst case you could run img2img
| diffusion.
|
| reply
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| The poisoned images aren't intended to be viewed, rather
| scraped and pass a basic human screen. You wouldn't be able to
| denoise as you'd have to denoise the entire dataset, the entire
| point is that these are virtually undetectable from typical
| training set examples, but they can push prompt frequencies
| around at will with a small number of poisoned examples.
| minimaxir wrote:
| > You wouldn't be able to denoise as you'd have to denoise
| the entire dataset
|
| Doing that requires much less compute than training a large
| generative image model.
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| > the entire point is that these are virtually undetectable
| from typical training set examples
|
| I'll repeat this point for clarity. After going over the
| paper again, denoising shouldn't affect this attack, it's
| the ability of plausible images to not be detected by human
| or AI discriminators (yet)
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| I guess the idea is that the model trainers are ignorant of
| this and wouldn't know to preprocess/wouldn't bother?
|
| That's actually quite plausible.
| enord wrote:
| I'm completely flabbergasted by the number of comments implying
| copyright concepts such as "fair use" or "derivative work" apply
| to trained ML models. Copyright is for _people_, as are the
| entailing rights, responsibilities and exemptions. This has gone
| far beyond anthropomorphising and we need to like get it
| together, man!
| ronsor wrote:
| You act like computers and ML models aren't just tools used by
| people.
| CaptainFever wrote:
| No one is saying a model is the legal entity. The legal
| entities are still people and corporations.
| tigrezno wrote:
| Do not fight the AI, it's a lost cause, embrace it.
| gweinberg wrote:
| For this to work, wouldn't you have to have an enormous number of
| artists collaborating on "poisoning" their images the same way
| (cow to handbag) while somehow keeping it secret form ai trainers
| that they were doing this? It seems to me that even if the
| technology works perfectly as intended, you're effectively just
| mislabeling a tiny fraction of the training data.
| ang_cire wrote:
| Setting aside the efficacy of this tool, I would be very
| interested in the legal implications of putting designs in your
| art that could corrupt ML models.
|
| For instance, if I set traps in my home which hurt an intruder we
| are both guilty of crimes (traps are illegal and are never
| considered self defense, B&E is illegal).
|
| Would I be responsible for corrupting the AI operator's data if I
| intentionally include adversarial artifacts to corrupt models, or
| is that just DRM to legally protect my art from infringement?
|
| edit:
|
| I replied to someone else, but this is probably good context:
|
| DRM is legally allowed to disable or even corrupt the software or
| media that it is protecting, if it detects misuse.
|
| If an adversarial-AI tool attacks the model, it then becomes a
| question of whether the model, having now incorporated my
| protected art, is now "mine" to disable/corrupt, or whether it is
| in fact out of bounds of DRM.
|
| So for instance, a court could say that the adversarial-AI
| methods could only actively prevent the training software from
| incorporating the protected media into a model, but could not
| corrupt the model itself.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| None whatsoever. There is no right to good data for model
| training, nor does any contractual relationship exist between
| you and and a model builder who scrapes your website.
| ang_cire wrote:
| If you're assuming this is open-shut, you're wrong. I asked
| this specifically as someone who works in security. A court
| is going to have to decide where the line is between DRM and
| malware in adversarial-AI tools.
| ufocia wrote:
| Worth trying but I doubt it unless we establish a right to
| train.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm not. Malware is one thin, passive data poisoning is
| another. Mapmakers have long used such devices to
| detect/deter unwanted copying. In the US such 'trap
| streets' are not protected by copyright, but nor do they
| generate liability.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street
| kortilla wrote:
| That's like asking if lying on a forum is illegal
| ang_cire wrote:
| No, it's much closer to (in fact, it is simply) asking if
| adversarial AI tools count as DRM or as malware. And a court
| is going to have to decide whether the model and or its
| output counts as separate software, which it is illegal for
| DRM to intentionally attack.
|
| DRM can, for instance, disable its own parent tool (e.g. a
| video game) if it detects misuse, but it can't attack the
| host computer or other software on that computer.
|
| So is the model or its output, having been trained on my art,
| a byproduct of my art, in which case I have a legal right to
| 'disable' it, or is it separate software that I don't have a
| right to corrupt?
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| How would that situation be remotely related?
| CaptainFever wrote:
| Japan is considering it, I think?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38615280
| etchalon wrote:
| My hope is these type of "poisoning tools" become ubiquitous for
| all content types on the web, forcing AI companies to, you know,
| license things.
| mjfl wrote:
| Another way would be, for every 1 piece of art you make, post 10
| AI generated arts, so that the SNR is really bad.
| Duanemclemore wrote:
| For visual artists who don't want visible artifacting in the art
| they feature online, would it be possible to upload these
| alongside your un-poisoned art, but have them only hanging out in
| the background? So say having one proper copy and a hundred
| poisoned copies in the same server, but only showing the un-
| poisoned one?
|
| Might this "flood the zone" approach also have -some- efficacy
| against human copycats?
| marcinzm wrote:
| This feels like it'll actually help make AI models better versus
| worse once they train on these images. Artists are basically, for
| free, creating training data that conveys what types of noise
| does not change the intended meaning of the image to the artist
| themselves.
| Albert931 wrote:
| Artist are now fully dependent on Software Engineers for
| protecting the future of their career lol
| zirgs wrote:
| Does it survive AI upscaling or img2img? If not - then it's
| useless. Nobody trains AI models without any preprocessing. This
| is basically a tool for 2022.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| The number of people who are going to be able to produce high
| fidelity art with off the shelf tools in the near future is
| unbelievable.
|
| It's pretty exciting.
|
| Being able to find a mix of styles you like and apply them to new
| subjects to make your own unique, personalized, artwork sounds
| like a wickedly cool power to give to billions of people.
| __loam wrote:
| And we only had to alienate millions of people from their labor
| to do it.
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| Yeah, sadly those millions of people don't matter in the
| grand scheme of things and were never going to profit off
| their work long term
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| What a bummer of a thing to say.
|
| Those millions/billions of people matter a great deal.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Is this utilitarianism?
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| Absolutely agree we should allow people to accumulate equity
| through effective allocation of their labor.
|
| And I also agree that we shouldn't build systems that
| alienate people from that accumulated equity.
| 23B1 wrote:
| It'll be about as wickedly tool as the ability to get on the
| internet, e.g. commoditized, transactional, and boring.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I know this is an unpopular thing to say these days, but I
| still think the internet is amazing.
|
| I have more access to information now than the most powerful
| people in the world did 40 years ago. I can learn about
| quantum field theory, about which pop star is allegedly
| fucking which other pop star, etc.
|
| If I don't care about the law I can read any of 25 million
| books or 100 million scientific papers all available on
| Anna's Archive for free in seconds.
| kredd wrote:
| In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the
| result, but origin and process. People will just look down on
| any art that's AI generated in a couple of years when it
| becomes ubiquitous.
| MacsHeadroom wrote:
| Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to
| integrate generative AI into their processes.
| mplewis wrote:
| Can you share some of the art you've made with generative
| AI?
| jurynulifcation wrote:
| Cool, who are you?
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| People who use generative AI in their processes are not
| artists.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| This is already the case. Art is a process, a form of human
| expression, not an end result.
|
| I'm sure OpenAI's models can shit out an approximation of a
| new Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams novel, but nobody with
| any level of literary appreciation would give a damn unless
| fraud was committed to trick readers into buying it. It's not
| the author's work, and there's no human message behind it.
| falcolas wrote:
| > Being able to find a mix of styles you like and apply them to
| new subjects to make your own unique, personalized, artwork
| sounds like a wickedly cool power to give to billions of
| people.
|
| And in the process, they will obviate the need for Nightshade
| and similar tools.
|
| AI models ingesting AI generated content does the work of
| destroying the models all by itself. Have a look at "Model
| Collapse" in relation to generative AI.
| efitz wrote:
| This is the DRM problem again.
|
| However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not
| rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now
| have that idea too.
|
| If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain
| might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain
| the ideas conveyed in the words).
|
| If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing,
| style, melody, etc) in that music are transferred.
|
| If you let people see a visual work, then the stylistic and
| content elements of that work are potentially absorbed by the
| audience.
|
| We have copyright to protect specific embodiments, but mostly if
| you try to share ideas with others without letting them use the
| ideas you shared, then you are in for a life of frustration and
| escalating arms race.
|
| I completely sympathize with anyone who had a great idea and
| spent a lot of effort to realize it. If I invented/created
| something awesome I would be hurt and angry if someone "copied"
| it. But the hard cold reality is that you cannot "own" an idea.
| freeAgent wrote:
| This doesn't stop anyone from viewing or scraping the work,
| though, so in no way is it DRM. It just causes certain methods
| of computer interpretation of an image to interpret it in an
| odd way vs. human viewers. They can still learn from them.
| avhon1 wrote:
| It absolutely is DRM, just a different form than media
| encryption. It's a purely-digital mechanism of enforcing
| rights.
| freeAgent wrote:
| It doesn't enforce any rights. It modifies the actual
| image. Humans and computers still have equal, open access
| to it.
| efitz wrote:
| It's designed to restrict the purposes for which the
| consumer can use the work. It is exactly like DRM in this
| way.
| freeAgent wrote:
| How does it stop you from using an image however you
| want?
| freeAgent wrote:
| To be clear, you can still train AI with these images.
| Nothing is stopping you.
| renewiltord wrote:
| That's true of almost all DRM, isn't it? Even for the
| most annoying form that is always-online DRM, everyone is
| provided the same access to the bytes that form a game.
| You and I have the same bytes of game.
|
| It's the purpose of some of those bytes that turns it
| into DRM.
| freeAgent wrote:
| No, it's not the same. The game is non-functional without
| the proper keys/authorization whereas images run through
| this algorithm are still images that anyone and any
| computer can view in the same manner without any
| authentication.
| tsujamin wrote:
| Being able to fairly monetise your creative work and put food
| on the table is a _bit_ rivalrous though, don't you think?
| efitz wrote:
| No, I disagree. There is no principle of the universe or
| across human civilizations that says that you have a right to
| eat because you produced a creative work.
|
| The way societies work is that the members of the society
| contribute and benefit in prescribed ways. Societies with
| lots of excess production may at times choose to allow
| creative works to be monetized. Societies without much
| surplus are extremely unlikely to do so, eg a society with
| not enough food for everyone to eat in the middle of a famine
| is extremely unlikely to feed people who only create art;
| those people will have to contribute in some other way.
|
| I think it is a very modern western idea (less than a century
| old) that _many_ artists can dedicate themselves solely to
| producing the art they want to produce. In all other times
| artists either had day jobs or worked on commission.
| jrflowers wrote:
| > There is no principle of the universe or across human
| civilizations
|
| Can you list the principles across human civilizations?
| juunpp wrote:
| He can also presumably list the principles of the
| universe.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The tragedy of "your business model is not my problem" as a
| spreading idea is that while you're right since distribution
| is where the money is (not creation), intellectual property
| is de-facto weakened today and IP piracy is widely considered
| an acceptable thing.
| throwoutway wrote:
| I don't see the parallel between this offensive tool and DRM. I
| could, say buy a perpetual license to an image from the artist,
| so that I can print it and put it on my wall, while it can
| simultaneously be poisonous to an AI system. I can even steal
| it and print it, while it is still poisonous to an AI system.
|
| The closest parallel I can think of is that humans can ingest
| chocolate but dogs should not.
| efitz wrote:
| A huge amount of DRM effort has been spent in the
| watermarking area, which is similar, but not exactly the
| same.
| jdietrich wrote:
| What you've described is the literal, dictionary definition
| of Digital Rights Management - a technology to restrict the
| use of a digital asset beyond the contractually-agreed terms.
| Copying is only one of many uses that the copyright-holder
| may wish to prevent. The regional lockout on a DVD had
| nothing to do with copy-protection, but it was still DRM.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| It's about the arm's race: DRM will always be cracked (with a
| sufficiently motivated customer.) AI poisoning will always be
| cracked (with a sufficiently motivated crawler.)
| xpe wrote:
| Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known
| here.
|
| > In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if
| its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous
| consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party
| reduces the ability of another party to consume it. -
| Wikipedia: Rivalry (economics)
|
| Also: we should recognize that stating something as rivalrous
| or not is _descriptive_ (what exists) not _normative_ (what
| should be).
| xpe wrote:
| > But the hard cold reality is that you cannot "own" an idea.
|
| The above comment is true about the properties of information,
| as explained via the lens of economics. [1]
|
| However, one ignores ownership as defined by various systems
| (including the rule of law and social conventions) at one's own
| peril. Such systems can also present a "hard cold reality" that
| can bankrupt or ostracize you.
|
| [1] Don't let the apparent confidence and technicality of the
| language of economists fool you. Economics isn't the only game
| in town. There are other ways to model and frame the world.
|
| [2] Dangling footnote warning. I think it is instructive to
| recognize that the field of economics has historically shown a
| kind of inferiority complex w.r.t. physics. Some economists
| ascribe to the level of rigor found in physics and that is well
| and good, but perhaps that effort should not be taken too
| seriously nor too far, since economics as a field operates at a
| different level. IMO, it would be wise for more in the field to
| eat a slice of humble pie.
|
| [3] Ibid. It is well-known that economists can be "hired guns"
| used to "prove" a wide variety of things, many of which are
| subjective. My point: you can hire an economist to shore up
| one's political proposals. Is the same true of physicists?
| Hopefully not to the same degree. Perhaps there are some cases
| of hucksterism, but nothing like the history of economists-
| wagging-the-dog! At some point, the electron tunnels or it does
| not.
| meowkit wrote:
| There are other games in town.
|
| But whatever game gives the most predictive power is going to
| win.
| xpe wrote:
| There is no need to frame this as "winning versus losing"
| regarding the many models that we draw upon.
|
| Even when talking about various kinds of scientific and
| engineering fields, predictive power isn't the only
| criteria, much less the best. Sometimes the simpler, less
| accurate models work well enough with less informational
| and computational cost.
|
| Even if we focus on prediction (as opposed to say
| statistical inference), often people want some kind of
| hybrid. Perhaps a blend of satisficing with limited
| information, scoped action spaces, and bounded computation;
| i.e. good enough given the information we have to make the
| decisions we can actuate with some computational budget.
| sfifs wrote:
| By that metric, various economic schools have been
| hilariously inept and would get classified not dissimilar
| to various schools of religious theology with their own
| dogmas. It's only in the last 15 years or so that some
| focus on empiricism and explaining reality rather than
| building theoretical castles in the air is coming about and
| is still far from mainstream.
| xpe wrote:
| > ... you cannot "own" an idea.
|
| Let's talk about ownership in a broader sense. In practice, one
| cannot effectively own (retain possession of) something without
| some combination of physical capability or coercion (or threat
| of coercion). Meaning: maintaining ownership of anything
| (physical or otherwise) often depends on the rule of law.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| Then let's use a more precise term that is also present in
| law: monopoly.
|
| You can't monopolize an idea.
|
| Copyright law is a prescription, not a description. Copyright
| law _demands_ that everyone play along with the lie that is
| intellectual monopoly. The effectiveness of that demand
| depends on how well it can be enforced.
|
| Playing pretend during the age of the printing press may have
| been easy enough to coordinate, but it's practically
| impossible here in the digital age.
|
| If we were to increase enforcement to the point of
| effectiveness, then what society would be left to
| participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of.
| juunpp wrote:
| You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these
| artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with
| copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law.
| Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one
| training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out
| of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?
| theragra wrote:
| If it were true, then we wouldn't have that great difference
| in opinions on this topic.
| juunpp wrote:
| That GP is utterly confused about copyright law is not an
| opinion.
| sircastor wrote:
| The United States Supreme Court rulings are supported
| literally by opinions of the justices.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| That may be the law, although we are probably years of legal
| proceedings away from finding out.
|
| It obviously is not "simple law".
| rlt wrote:
| It's not obvious to me that using a copyrighted image to
| train a model is copyright infringement. It's certainly not
| copyright infringement when used to train a human who may end
| up creating works that are influenced by (but not copies of)
| the original works.
|
| Now, if the original copyrighted work can be extracted or
| reproduced from the model, that's obviously copyright
| infringement.
|
| OpenAI etc should ensure they don't do that.
| Andrex wrote:
| Reproduced to what fidelity? 100%?
|
| If OpenAI's output reproduces a copyrighted image with one
| pixel changed, is that valid in your view? Where does the
| line end?
|
| Copyrighted material should never be used for nonacademic
| language models. "Garbage in, garbage out." All results are
| tainted.
|
| "But being forced to use non-copyrighted works will only
| slow things down!"
|
| Maybe that's a good thing, too. Copyright is something
| every industry has to accept and deal with -- LLMs don't
| get a "cool tech, do whatever" get-out-of-jail free card.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| Copyright is decided by the courts, it's a legal thing
| not some a biological. If the courts decide it's legal it
| will be.
| Andrex wrote:
| I'm totally down for the courts handling this
| AI/copyright mess, but I don't think technologists are
| going to like the results.
|
| By virtue of the fact that it _is_ "fuzzy" and open to
| interpretation, we're going to see lawsuits, the
| resulting chilling effects of those lawsuits will blunt
| US tech firms from the practice of ingesting large
| amounts of copywritten material without a second thought.
| US tech firms will be giving it a second, third, fourth,
| etc. thought once the lawsuits start.
|
| It's gonna be like submarine patents on steroids.
|
| Like I said, I'm down for letting the courts decide. But
| AI supporters should probably avoid kicking the hornets'
| nests regarding copyright.
| rlt wrote:
| > Reproduced to what fidelity? 100%?
|
| Whatever the standard is for humans doing the exact same
| thing.
| huytersd wrote:
| Nothing is being reproduced. Just the ideas being reused.
| sircastor wrote:
| >This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with
| this?
|
| Because this isn't simple law. It feels like simple
| infringement, but there's no actual copying going on. You
| can't open up the database and find a given duplicate of a
| work. Instead you have some abstraction of what it takes to
| get to a given work.
|
| Also it's important to point out that nothing in the law is
| sure. A good lawyer, a sympathetic judge, a
| bored/interested/contrarian juror, etc can render "settled
| law" unsettled in an instant. The law is not a set of board
| game rules.
| flkiwi wrote:
| If the AI were a human and that human made an image that
| copied substantial elements of another human's creative
| work after a careful review of the original creator's work,
| even if it was not an original copy and no archival copy
| was stored somewhere in the second creator's creative
| space, I would be concerned about copyright infringement
| exposure if I were the second (copying) creator.
|
| I'm open to the idea that copyright law might need to
| change, but it doesn't seem controversial to note that
| scraping actual creative works to extract elements for an
| algorithm to generate new works crosses a number of
| worrying lines.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Illegality and wrongdoing are completely distinct categories.
|
| I'm not convinced that most copyright infringements are
| immoral regardless of their legal status.
|
| If you post your images for the world to see, and someone
| uses that image, you are not harmed.
|
| The idea that the world owes you something after you
| deliberately shared it with others seems bizarre.
| brookst wrote:
| Imagine if every book or advertisement or public
| conversation you overheard led to future claims that you
| had unethically learned from public information. It's such
| a weird worldview.
|
| (BTW I forbid you from using my comment here in your future
| reasoning)
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| > This is simple law.
|
| "One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws
| and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there
| are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first
| to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a
| moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a
| moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree
| with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
| gfodor wrote:
| Huge market for snake oil here. There is no way that such tools
| will ever win, given the requirements the art remain viewable to
| human perception, so even if you made something that worked
| (which this sounds like it doesn't) from first principles it will
| be worked around immediately.
|
| The only real way for artists or anyone really to try to hold
| back models from training on human outputs is through the law,
| ie, leveraging state backed violence to deter the things they
| don't want. This too won't be a perfect solution, if anything it
| will just put more incentives for people to develop decentralized
| training networks that "launder" the copyright violations that
| would allow for prosecutions.
|
| All in all it's a losing battle at a minimum and a stupid battle
| at worst. We know these models can be created easily and so they
| will, eventually, since you can't prevent a computer from
| observing images you want humans to be able to observe freely.
| AJ007 wrote:
| The level of claims accompanied by enthusiastic reception from
| a technically illiterate audience make it sound, smell, and
| sound like snake oil without much deep investigation.
|
| There is another alternative to the law. Provide your art for
| private viewing only, and ensure your in person audience does
| not bring recording devices with them. That may sound absurd,
| but it's a common practice during activities like having sex.
| gfodor wrote:
| True I can imagine that kind of thing becoming popular.
| thfuran wrote:
| >There is no way that such tools will ever win, given the
| requirements the art remain viewable to human perception
|
| On the other hand, the adversarial environment might push
| models towards a representation more aligned with human
| perception, which is neat.
| minimaxir wrote:
| A few months ago I made a proof-of-concept on how finetuning
| Stable Diffusion XL on known bad/incoherent images can actually
| allow it to output "better" images if those images are used as a
| negative prompt, i.e. specifying a high-dimensional area of the
| latent space that model generation should stay away from:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37211519
|
| There's a nonzero chance that encouraging the creation of a large
| dataset of known tampered data can ironically _improve_
| generative AI art models by allowing the model to recognize
| tampered data and allow the training process to work around it.
| k__ wrote:
| What are LLMs that was trained with public domain content only?
|
| I would believe there is enough content out there to get
| reasonably good results.
| squidbeak wrote:
| I really don't understand the anxiety of artists towards AI - as
| if creatives haven't always borrowed and imitated. Every leading
| artist has had acolytes, and while it's true no artist ever had
| an acolyte as prodigiously productive as AI will be, I don't see
| anything different between a young artist looking to Picasso for
| cues and Stable Diffusion or DALL-E doing the same. Styles and
| methods haven't ever been subject to copyright - and art would
| die the moment that changed.
|
| The only explanation I can find for this backlash is that artists
| are actually worried just like the rest of us that pretty soon AI
| will produce higher quality more inventive work faster and more
| imaginatively than they can - which is very natural, but not a
| reason to inhibit an AI's creative education.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| This has been litigated over and over again, and there have
| been plenty of good points made and concerns raised over it by
| those who it actually affects. It seems a little bit
| disingenuous (especially in this forum) to say that that
| conclusion is the "only explanation" you can come up with. And
| just to avoid prompting you too much: trust me, we all know or
| can guess why you think AI art is a good thing regardless of
| any concerns one might bring up.
| jwells89 wrote:
| Imitation isn't the problem so much as it is that ML generated
| images are composed of a mush of the images it was trained on.
| A human artist can abstract the concepts underpinning a style
| and mimic it by drawing all-new lineart, coloration, shading,
| composition, etc, while the ML model has to lean on blending
| training imagery together.
|
| Furthermore there's a sort of unavoidable "jitter" in human-
| produced art that varies between individuals that stems from
| vastly different ways of thinking, perception of the world,
| mental abstraction processes, life experiences, etc. This is
| why artists who start out imitating other artists almost always
| develop their imitations into a style all their own -- the
| imitations were already appreciably different from the original
| due to the aforementioned biases and those distinctions only
| grow with time and experimentation.
|
| There would be greatly reduced moral controversy surrounding ML
| models if they lacked that mincemeat/pink slime aspect.
| 23B1 wrote:
| "I really don't understand the anxiety of slaves towards free
| labor, as if humans haven't always had to work to survive"
| dang wrote:
| Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and
| flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly.
| It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking
| the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
| will5421 wrote:
| I think the artists need to agree to stop making art altogether.
| That ought to get people's attention. Then the AI people might
| (be socially pressured or legally forced to) put their tools
| away.
| Zetobal wrote:
| Well, at least for sdxl it's not working neither in LoRa nor
| dreambooth finetunes.
| chris-orgmenta wrote:
| I want _progressive fees_ on copyright /IP/patent usage, and
| worldwide gov cooperation/legislation (and perhaps even worldwide
| ability to use works without obtaining initial permission,
| although let's not go into that outlandish stuff)
|
| I want a scaling license fee to apply (e.g. % pegged to revenue.
| This still has an indirect problem with different industries
| having different profit margins, but still seems the fairest).
|
| And I want the world (or EU, then others to follow suit) to
| slowly reduce copyright to 0 years* after artists death if owned
| by a person, and 20-30 years max if owned by a corporation.
|
| And I want the penalties for not declaring usage** / not paying
| fees, to be incredibly high for corporations... 50% gross
| (harder) / net (easier) profit margin for the year? Something
| that isn't a slap on the wrist and can't be wriggled out of
| _quite_ so easily, and is actually an incentive not to steal in
| the first place.)
|
| [*]or whatever society deems appropriate.
|
| [**]Until auto-detection (for better or worse) gets good enough.
|
| IMO that would allow personal use, encourages new entrants to
| market, encourages innovation, incentivises better behaviour from
| OpenAI et al.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Why are there no examples?
| arisAlexis wrote:
| Wouldn't this be applicable to text too?
| matteoraso wrote:
| Too little, too late. There's already very large high quality
| datasets to train AI art generators.
| eigenvalue wrote:
| This seems like a pretty pointless "arms race" or "cat and mouse
| game". People who want to train generative image models and who
| don't care about what artists think about it at all can just do
| some basic post-processing on the images that is just enough to
| destroy the very carefully tuned changes this Nightshade
| algorithm makes. Something like resampling it to slightly lower
| resolution and then using another super-resolution model on it to
| upsample it again would probably be able to destroy these subtle
| tweaks without making a big difference to a human observer.
|
| In the future, my guess is that courts will generally be on the
| side of artists because of societal pressures, and artists will
| be able to challenge any image they find and have it sent to yet
| another ML model that can quickly adjudicate whether the
| generated image is "too similar" to the artist's style (which
| would also need to be dissimilar enough from everyone else's
| style to give a reasonable legal claim in the first place).
|
| Or maybe artists will just give up on trying to monetize the
| images themselves and focus only on creating physical artifacts,
| similar to how independent musicians make most of their money
| nowadays from touring and selling merchandise at shows (plus
| Patreon). Who knows? It's hard to predict the future when there
| are such huge fundamental changes that happen so quickly!
| hackernewds wrote:
| the point is you could circumvent one nightshade, but as long
| as the cat and mouse game continues there can be more
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-20 23:00 UTC)