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

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

#221

Post by z7 » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:21 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…

>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.

There's an entire branch of philosophy that calls these assumptions into question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumanism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism

>Martin Heidegger viewed humanism as a metaphysical philosophy that ascribes to humanity a universal essence and privileges it above all other forms of existence. For Heidegger, humanism takes consciousness as the paradigm of philosophy, leading it to a subjectivism and idealism that must be avoided.

>Processes of technological and non-technological posthumanization both tend to result in a partial "de-anthropocentrization" of human society, as its circle of membership is expanded to include other types of entities and the position of human beings is decentered. A common theme of posthumanist study is the way in which processes of posthumanization challenge or blur simple binaries, such as those of "human versus non-human", "natural versus artificial", "alive versus non-alive", and "biological versus mechanical".

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

#222

Post by DennisAleynikov » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:21 PM UTC

__loam wrote: post #202

r3trohack3r wrote: post #166

The 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.

And we only had to alienate millions of people from their labor to do it.

Yeah, sadly those millions of people don’t matter in the grand scheme of things and were never going to profit off their work long term

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

#223

Post by mensetmanusman » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:21 PM UTC

__loam wrote: post #202

r3trohack3r wrote: post #166

The 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.

And we only had to alienate millions of people from their labor to do it.

Is this utilitarianism?

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

#224

Post by beepbooptheory » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:22 PM UTC

squidbeak wrote: post #206

I really don't understand the anxiety of artists towards AI - as if creatives haven't always borrowed and imitated. Every leading artist has had acolytes, and while it's true no artist ever had an acolyte as prodigiously productive as AI will be, I don't see anything different between a young artist looking to Picasso for cues and Stable Diffusion or DALL-E doing the same. Styles and methods haven't ever been subject…

This has been litigated over and over again, and there have been plenty of good points made and concerns raised over it by those who it actually affects. It seems a little bit disingenuous (especially in this forum) to say that that conclusion is the "only explanation" you can come up with. And just to avoid prompting you too much: trust me, we all know or can guess why you think AI art is a good thing regardless of any concerns one might bring up.

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

#225

Post by GaryNumanVevo » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:23 PM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #182

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poisoned images aren't intended to be viewed, rather scraped and pass a basic human screen. You wouldn't be able to denoise as you'd have to denoise the entire dataset, the entire point is that these are virtually undetectable from typical training set examples, but they can push prompt frequencies around at will with a small number of poisoned examples.

> You wouldn't be able to denoise as you'd have to denoise the entire dataset Doing that requires much less compute than training a large generative image model.

> the entire point is that these are virtually undetectable from typical training set examples

I'll repeat this point for clarity. After going over the paper again, denoising shouldn't affect this attack, it's the ability of plausible images to not be detected by human or AI discriminators (yet)

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

#226

Post by xpe » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:23 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #172

This is the DRM problem again. However much we might wish that it was not true, ideas are not rivalrous. If you share an idea with another person, they now have that idea too. If you share words on paper, then someone with eyes and a brain might memorize them (or much more likely, just grasp and retain the ideas conveyed in the words). If you let someone hear your music, then the ideas (phrasing, style, melody, etc)…

Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known here.

> In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. - Wikipedia: Rivalry (economics)

Also: we should recognize that stating something as rivalrous or not is descriptive (what exists) not normative (what should be).

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

#227

Post by __loam » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:23 PM UTC

Almondsetat wrote: post #190

ufocia wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is. You are arguably making unauthorized copies to train.

Unauthorized copies? If the images are published on the internet how is it downloading them "unauthorized"?

Publicly available doesn't mean you have a license to do whatever you like with the image. If I download an image and re-upload it to my own art station or sell prints of it, that is something I can physically do because the image is public, but I'm absolutely violating copyright.

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

#228

Post by brucethemoose2 » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:23 PM UTC

minimaxir wrote: post #182

GaryNumanVevo wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poisoned images aren't intended to be viewed, rather scraped and pass a basic human screen. You wouldn't be able to denoise as you'd have to denoise the entire dataset, the entire point is that these are virtually undetectable from typical training set examples, but they can push prompt frequencies around at will with a small number of poisoned examples.

> You wouldn't be able to denoise as you'd have to denoise the entire dataset Doing that requires much less compute than training a large generative image model.

I guess the idea is that the model trainers are ignorant of this and wouldn't know to preprocess/wouldn't bother?

That's actually quite plausible.

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

#229

Post by DennisAleynikov » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:23 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #99

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…

We are machines. We just haven't evenly accepted it yet. Our biology is mechanical, and lay people don't possess an intuition about this. Unless you've studied molecular biology and biochemistry, it's not something that you can easily grasp. Our inventions are mechanical, too, and they're reaching increasing levels of sophistication. At some point we'll meet in the middle.

100% this. Labor and all these other concepts are outdated ways to interpret reality

Humans are themselves mechanical so at the end of the day none of these issues actually matter

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

#230

Post by krapp » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 8:25 PM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #148

krapp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Humans don't fall for optical illusions? News to me.

[flagged]