[flagged]
Lol, the scale is other-worldly different...
Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
491–500 of 710 posts
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. There may be lots of over-priced junk that makes you want to question this idea. But let's not nit-pick on that. In two years time people will not see any value in AI art, quite correctly because there is not much human labour in creating it.
> According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation.
And yet it's completely and absolutely wrong. Value is created by the subjective utility offered to the consumer, irrespective of what inputs created the thing conveying that utility.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
> It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity. You hit the nail on the head. Copyright is, by its very nature, a "tool of capital." It's a means of creating new artificial property fiefdoms for a select few capital holders to lord over, while taking rights from anyone else who wants to engage in the practice of making art. Everyone has their ri…
> It's a means of creating new artificial property fiefdoms for a select few capital holders to lord over, while taking rights from anyone else who wants to engage in the practice of making art.
I doubt even Disney sue people who want to make fan art. But if you want to sell said art or distribute it, they will.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#494The 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.
Not really. There is a reason why we find realistic painting to be more fascinating than a photo and why some still practice it. The effort put in by another artist does affect our enjoyment.
For me it doesn’t. I’m generating images, realistic, 2.5d, 2d and I like them as much. I don’t feel (or miss) what you described. Or what any other arts guy describes, for that matter. Arts people are different, because they were trained to feel something a normal person wouldn’t. And that’s okay, a normal person without training wouldn’t see how much beauty and effort there is in an algorithm or a legal contract as well.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#495Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
I haven’t read anything “shit out” by any LLM that even nearly approaches the level of quality by the authors you named — would very much like to see something like that - do you have any evidence for your claims?
AFAICT current text generation is something approaching bad mimicry at best and downright abysmal in general. I think you still need a very skilled author and meaty brain with a story to tell to make use of an LLM for storytelling. Sure it’s a useful tool that will make authors more effective but we are far from the point where you tell the LLM “write a story set in Pratchetts Discworld” and something acceptable or even entertaining will be spit out - if such a thing can even be achieved.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation. There may be lots of over-priced junk that makes you want to question this idea. But let's not nit-pick on that. In two years time people will not see any value in AI art, quite correctly because there is not much human labour in creating it.
Labor theory of value is quite controversial, many economists call it tautological or even metaphysical. I also don't really see what LTV has to say about AI art, if anything, except that the economic value generated by AI art should be distributed to everybody and not just funneled to a few capitalists at the top. I would agree with that. It's true that more jobs get created even as jobs are destroyed, but it's also true that just as our ancestors fought for a 40 hour work week and a social safety net, we should be able to ask for more as computers become ever so productive.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#497This 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…
I can’t really see any difference in those images on the Twitter example when viewing it on mobile
At full size it's super obvious - I made a side-by-side:
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#498Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.
People who use generative AI in their processes are not artists.
I don’t think this is quite right. I think paraphrasing The Incredibles has a better take:
When everybody is an artist, then nobody will be one.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 (wha…
I think ideas being rivalrous is intrinsic, and therefore descriptive and normative.
I'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electrons should repel each other because they repel each other." Not to mention that this claim runs amok of the naturalistic fallacy. So what are you driving at?
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#500This 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-re…
> This seems like a pretty pointless "arms race" or "cat and mouse game".
If there is any "point" of this, it's that's going to push the AI models to become better at capturing how humans see things.