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

31–40 of 710 posts

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

#31

Post by wokwokwok »

Filligree wrote: post #20
NoraCodes wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

Who pays to use generators? The open ones are way more capable and interesting, generally.

Is that really your concern?

Whether you pay for it?

Let’s put it this way: paying for or not paying for stolen goods. Does it make any difference?

Why is that remotely relevant?

You want to argue “are the good stolen?” Sure. That’s a discussion we can have.

Did you pay for them or not? Who cares?

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

#34

Post by wincy »

SonicSoul wrote: post #25
NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier 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.

great comment! imagine being a photographer that takes decades to perfect their craft. sure another student can study and mimic your style. but it's still different than some computer model "ingesting" vast amount of photos and vomiting something similar for $5.99 in aws cpu cost so that some prompt jockey can call themselves an AI artist and make money off of other peoples talent. i get that this is cynical and does…

Like 99.9% of the art the common people care about is Darth Vader and Taylor Swift and other pop culture stuff like that.

These people literally don’t care what your definition of what is and isn’t art is, or how it’s made, they just want a lock screen wallpaper of themselves fighting against Thanos on top of a volcano.

The argument of “what is art” has been an academic conversation largely ignored by the people actually consuming the art for hundreds of years. Photography was just pop culture trash, comics were pop culture trash, stick figure web comics were pop culture trash. Today’s pop culture trash is the “prompt jockey”.

I make probably 5-10 pictures every day over the course of maybe 20 minutes as jokes on Teams because we have Bing Chat Enterprise. My coworkers seem to enjoy it. Nobody cares that it’s generated. I’m also not trying to be an “artist” whatever that means. It just is, and it’s fun. I wasn’t gonna hire an artist to draw me pictures to shitpost to my coworkers. It’s instead unlocked a new fun way to communicate.

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

#37

Post by witherk »

NoraCodes wrote: post #8
KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

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.

"Cameras are a tool of captial to fuck over human portrait artists"

It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.

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

#38

Post by jazzyjackson »

Kuinox wrote: post #14
Quanttek wrote: post #10

This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they should license the content they use for the training data. As long as there are not sufficient legal protections and the EU/Congress do not act, tools like these can serve as a stopgap and maybe help increase pressure on policymakers

> they should license the content they use for the training data You mean like OpenAI and Adobe ? Only the free and open source models didn't licensed any content for the training data.

source for OpenAI paying anyone a dime? don't you think that would set a precedent that everyone else deserves their cut?

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

#39

Post by luma »

popohauer wrote: post #30
Quanttek wrote: post #10

This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they should license the content they use for the training data. As long as there are not sufficient legal protections and the EU/Congress do not act, tools like these can serve as a stopgap and maybe help increase pressure on policymakers

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

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

#40

Post by educaysean »

NoraCodes wrote: post #8
KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

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.
Post reply on HN