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

211–220 of 710 posts

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

#211

Post by minimaxir »

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #171
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…

The artifacts are a non-issue. It's intended images with nightshade are intended to be silently scrapped and avoid human filtering.

The artifacts are extremely an issue for artists who don't want their images damaged for the possibility of them not being trained by AI.

It's a bad tradeoff.

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

#212

Post by popohauer »

luma wrote: post #39
popohauer wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement on its head.

If it were a derivative work[1] (and sufficiently transformational) then it's allowed under current copyright law and might not be the slam dunk ruling you were hoping for. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Oh, interesting, I didn't realize that's how it worked. Thanks for the additional context around this. Guess it's not as upending as I thought it could be.

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

#213

Post by __loam »

usrbinbash wrote: post #140
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…

> 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 thi…

What a reductive way to describe learning art. The similarities are merely surface level.

> Given that there is no comprehensive model for how humans actually learn things, that would be an unfeasible requirement.

That is precisely why we should not be making this comparison.

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

#214

Post by withinboredom »

dehrmann wrote: post #205
Barrin92 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not how licensing work, be it art, software or just about anything else. We have some pretty well defined and differentiated rules what you can and cannot do, in particular commercially or in public, with someone else's work. If you go and study a work of fiction in a college class, unless that material is in the public domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy, you want to broadcast a movie in public, yo…

Right, but there's also fair use, and every use I mentioned could plausibly fall under that.

There's no such thing as fair use until you get to court (as a legal defense). Then, the court decides whether it is fair use or not. They may or may not agree with you. Only a court can determine what constitutes fair use (at least in the US).

So, if you are doing something and asserting "fair use," you are literally asking for someone to challenge you and prove it is not fair use.

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

#215

Post by Ukv »

devmor wrote: post #27

Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology when it is a non-issue to any model by simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use.

I think people 100% have the right to use this on their images, but:

> simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use

Currently it's generally infeasible to obtain licenses at the required scale.

When attempting to develop a model that can describe photos for visually impaired users, I had even tried to reach out to obtain a license from Getty. They repeatedly told me that they don't license images for machine learning[0].

I think it's easy to say "well too bad, it doesn't deserve to exist" if you're just thinking about DALL-E 3, but there's a huge number of positive and far less-controversial applications of machine learning that benefit from web-scale pretraining and foundation models - spam filtering, tumour segmentation, voice transcription, language translation, defect detection, etc.

[0]: https://i.imgur.com/iER0BE2.png

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

#216

Post by ufocia »

ang_cire wrote: post #181
anigbrowl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're assuming this is open-shut, you're wrong. I asked this specifically as someone who works in security. A court is going to have to decide where the line is between DRM and malware in adversarial-AI tools.

Worth trying but I doubt it unless we establish a right to train.

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

#217

Post by withinboredom »

stale2002 wrote: post #203
Barrin92 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's not how licensing work, be it art, software or just about anything else. We have some pretty well defined and differentiated rules what you can and cannot do, in particular commercially or in public, with someone else's work. If you go and study a work of fiction in a college class, unless that material is in the public domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy, you want to broadcast a movie in public, yo…

> If you go and study a work of fiction in a college class, unless that material is in the public domain, you're gonna have to pay for your copy, No you wont! It is only someone who distributes copies who can get in trouble. If instead of that you as an individual decide to study a piece of art or fiction, and you do no distribute copies of it to anyone, this is completely legal and you don't have to pay anyone for i…

Making a profit off variations of someone's work isn't covered under fair use.

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

#218

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

minimaxir wrote: post #211
GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The artifacts are a non-issue. It's intended images with nightshade are intended to be silently scrapped and avoid human filtering.

The artifacts are extremely an issue for artists who don't want their images damaged for the possibility of them not being trained by AI. It's a bad tradeoff.

Nightshaded images aren't intended for portfolios. They're mean to be uploaded enmasse and scraped later.

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

#219

Post by charcircuit »

pimlottc wrote: post #136
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

The gradient on the bat has blocks in it instead of being smooth.

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

#220

Post by __loam »

stale2002 wrote: post #189
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 this means, is these systems will fall into different categories of law around copyright and free-use. No they won't. A human who uses a computer as a tool (under all the previous qualifications of fair use) is still a human doing something in fair use. Adding a computer to the workflow of a human doesn't make fair use disappear. A human can use photoshop, in fair use. They can use a camera. They can use all s…

Yet the copyright office has already stated that getting an AI to create an image for you does not have sufficient human authorship to be copyrighted. There's already a legal distinction here between this "tool" and tools like photoshop and cameras.

It's also presumptive to assume that AI tools have these fair use protections when none of this has actually been decided in a court of law yet. There's still several unsettled cases here.

Post reply on HN