Artist are now fully dependent on Software Engineers for protecting the future of their career lol
[deleted]
Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
161–170 of 710 posts
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#162[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 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 intentionally plagiarizing). As a result, all new works produced by humans will have a certain degree of originality to them, regardless of influences due to differences in perception, mental abstraction processes, and life experiences among other factors. Furthermore, humans can produce art without any external instruction or input… give a 5 year old that’s never been exposed to art and hasn’t been shown how to make art a box of crayons and it’s a matter of time before they start drawing.
ML models are closer to highly advanced collage makers that take known images and blend them together in a way that’s convincing at first glance, which is why it’s not uncommon to see elements lifted directly from training data in the images they produce. They do not abstract the same way and by definition cannot produce anything that’s not a blend of training data. Give them no data and they cannot produce anything.
It’s absolutely erroneous to compare them to humans, and I believe it will continue to be so until ML models evolve into something closer to AGI which can e.g. produce stylized work with nothing but photographic input that it’s gathered in a robot body and artistic experimentation.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#163This 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
I didn't see it immediately either, but there's a ton of added noise. The most noticeable bit for me was near the standing person's bent elbow, but there's a lot more that becomes obvious when flipping back and forth between browser tabs instead of swiping on Twitter.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#164Long-term I think the real problem for artists will be corporations generating their own high quality targeted datasets from a cheap labor pool, completely outcompeting them by a landslide.
[deleted]
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hardly the point. The same can be said for road rules between vehicles and pedestrians, for example in major Indian cities, it's pretty much a free-for-all.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#166The 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.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm using "implication" as a synonym of "effect". If a human learns to imitate your style, that human can make at most a handful of drawings in a single day. The only way for the rate of output to increase is for more humans to learn to imitate it. If an AI learns to imitate your style, the AI can be trivially copied to any number of computers and the maximum output rate is unbounded. Whether this is good or bad is s…
Ah okay, I get your meaning now, I'll edit my original comment too. Though we already have an established precedent in-between, that of Photoshop allowing artists to be, easily, 10x faster then the best painters previously. i.e. Right now 'AI' artistry could be considered a turbo-Photoshop.
Tool improvements only apply a constant factor to the effectiveness of learning. Creating a generative model applies an unbounded factor to the effectiveness of learning because, as I said, the only limit is how much computing resources are available to humanity. If a single person was able to copy themselves at practically no cost and the copy retained all the knowledge of the original then the two situations would be equivalent, but that's impossible. Having n people with the same skill multiplies the cost of learning by n. Having n instances of an AI with the same skill multiplies the cost of learning by 1.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
And? Even if neural networks learn the same way humans do, this is not an argument against taking measures against one's art being used as training data, since there are different implications if a human learns to paint the same way as another human vs. if an AI learns to paint the same way as a human. If the two were exactly indistinguishable in their effects no one would care about AIs, not even researchers.
And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools. Even if you argue that an AI is "human enough" the artists should still have the right to refuse their art being studies.
> And yet, some people don't even want their artwork studied in schools.
You can either make it for yourself and keep it for yourself or you can put it out into the world for all to see, criticize, study, imitate, and admire.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That is how consent works.
Re: Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not say they were exclusively that; I said they were that. Once we as a society have implemented a good way for the artists whose work powers these machines to survive, you can feel good about using them. Until then, frankly, you're doing something immoral by paying to use them.
By this logic we ought to start lynching artists, why they didn't care about all of those who lost their jobs making pigments, canvasses, pencils, brushes etc etc
Artists pay those people and make their jobs needed. Same as the person above claiming Duchamp didn't negotiate with the ceramics makers - yes, they absolutely did and do pay their suppliers. Artists aren't smash and grabbing their local Blick.
AI pays no artist.