Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 710 posts

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#261

Post by xpe »

efitz wrote: post #172

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)…

> ... 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.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#263

Post by shlubbert »

jwells89 wrote: post #162
bluejekyll wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

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 intentiona…

Beautifully put. I wish this nuance was more widely understood in the current AI debate.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#264

Post by gumballindie »

efitz wrote: post #172

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)…

[flagged]

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#265

Post by l33tman »

jwells89 wrote: post #162
bluejekyll wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sa…

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 intentiona…

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..

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#266

Post by AJ007 »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #218
minimaxir wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nightshaded images aren't intended for portfolios. They're mean to be uploaded enmasse and scraped later.

To where? A place no one sees them and they aren't scraped?

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#267

Post by AJ007 »

gfodor wrote: post #175

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, levera…

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.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#268

Post by freeAgent »

renewiltord wrote: post #246
freeAgent wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t enforce any rights. It modifies the actual image. Humans and computers still have equal, open access to it.

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.

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.

Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

#269

Post by withinboredom »

stale2002 wrote: post #236
withinboredom wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.…

> 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.

Post reply on HN