Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by Phiwise_ » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

bluejekyll wrote: post #52

KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

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 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.

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

#102

Post by kelseyfrog » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #89

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…

>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 ent…

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.

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

#103

Post by enord » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

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!

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

#104

Post by MarcoZavala » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:49 PM UTC

[dead]

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

#105

Post by snakeyjake » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:51 PM UTC

dist-epoch wrote: post #43

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".

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.

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

#106

Post by tester457 » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:54 PM UTC

educaysean wrote: post #40

NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Among working human artists your opinion is in the minority. Most professionals are not a fan of this.

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

#107

Post by danielbln » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:55 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #62

KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

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.

As another posted out, modern models like BLIP or GPT4V aren't affected by this either.

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

#108

Post by Minor49er » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:55 PM UTC

popohauer wrote: post #16

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.

Is the existence of the AI tool not itself a product of authentic creativity? Does eliminating barriers to image generation not facilitate authentic creativity?

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

#109

Post by riversflow » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:56 PM UTC

NoraCodes wrote: post #42

akx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if I run Stable Diffusion locally without paying anyone anything? Is it less immoral?

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.

How is empowering others to create not a moral good?

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

#110

Post by klyrs » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 6:56 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #82

ukuina wrote: post #78

Won't a simple downsample->upsample be the antidote?

How do you train your upsampler? (Also: why are you seeking to provide an “antidote”?)

> 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?