Earlier quoted context omitted.
>why are you seeking to provide an “antidote” To train a model on the data.
Get permission to use the data.
Got all the permission I need when it was put on a publicly accessible server.
Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
121–130 of 710 posts
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#122Setting 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 adversaria…
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.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#123[flagged]
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.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#124My hope is these type of "poisoning tools" become ubiquitous for all content types on the web, forcing AI companies to, you know, license things.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#125Earlier 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.
Do you make your living as an artist?
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#126Won't a simple downsample->upsample be the antidote?
No, it's resistant to transformation. Rotation, cropping, scaling, the image remains poisonous. The only antidote known currently is active artist cooperation.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#127[flagged]
Art schools don't teach people how to paint in different artistic styles. They teach materials and technique.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Therein lies the crux of the issue: AI is not “someone”. We need to approach this without anthropomorphizing the AI.
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.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#129Another way would be, for every 1 piece of art you make, post 10 AI generated arts, so that the SNR is really bad.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get permission to use the data.
Got all the permission I need when it was put on a publicly accessible server.
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.