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

131–140 of 710 posts

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

#131

Post by snakeyjake »

Minor49er wrote: post #113
snakeyjake wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

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

#132

Post by Duanemclemore »

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?

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

#133

Post by michaelmrose »

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…

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.

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

#135

Post by sesm »

gedy wrote: post #114
542458 wrote: post #48

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…

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.

In short, anti-AI watermark.

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

#136

Post by pimlottc »

542458 wrote: post #48

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…

I can’t really see any difference in those images on the Twitter example when viewing it on mobile

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

#137

Post by estebank »

ta8645 wrote: post #111
dorkwood wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

#138

Post by withinboredom »

michaelmrose wrote: post #133
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…

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.

> 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.

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

#139

Post by kortilla »

ang_cire wrote: post #119

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 adversaria…

That’s like asking if lying on a forum is illegal

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

#140

Post by usrbinbash »

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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN