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

301–310 of 710 posts

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

#301

Post by CaptainFever »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #70
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.

> they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists So are the copyright and intellectual property laws that artists rely on. From my perspective, you are the capital and I am the one being fucked. So are you ready to abolish all that?

Right. This new outrage is just the copyright owners realising that their power is not safe. Where is the outrage when self checkouts happened?

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

#302

Post by juunpp »

theragra wrote: post #294
juunpp wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?

If it were true, then we wouldn't have that great difference in opinions on this topic.

That GP is utterly confused about copyright law is not an opinion.

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

#303

Post by sebzim4500 »

juunpp wrote: post #286
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)…

You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?

That may be the law, although we are probably years of legal proceedings away from finding out.

It obviously is not "simple law".

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

#304

Post by the8472 »

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.

do you mean scrapped or scraped?

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

#305

Post by rlt »

juunpp wrote: post #286
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)…

You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?

It’s not obvious to me that using a copyrighted image to train a model is copyright infringement. It’s certainly not copyright infringement when used to train a human who may end up creating works that are influenced by (but not copies of) the original works.

Now, if the original copyrighted work can be extracted or reproduced from the model, that’s obviously copyright infringement.

OpenAI etc should ensure they don’t do that.

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

#306

Post by huytersd »

juunpp wrote: post #286
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)…

You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?

Nothing is being reproduced. Just the ideas being reused.

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

#307

Post by sebzim4500 »

23B1 wrote: post #250
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.

It'll be about as wickedly tool as the ability to get on the internet, e.g. commoditized, transactional, and boring.

I know this is an unpopular thing to say these days, but I still think the internet is amazing.

I have more access to information now than the most powerful people in the world did 40 years ago. I can learn about quantum field theory, about which pop star is allegedly fucking which other pop star, etc.

If I don't care about the law I can read any of 25 million books or 100 million scientific papers all available on Anna's Archive for free in seconds.

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

#308

Post by kredd »

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.

In terms of art, population tends to put value not on the result, but origin and process. People will just look down on any art that’s AI generated in a couple of years when it becomes ubiquitous.

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

#309

Post by Andrex »

rlt wrote: post #305
juunpp wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't copyright ideas, you copyright works. And these artists' productions are works, not abstract ideas, with copyrights, and they are being violated. This is simple law. Why do people have such a hard time with this? Are you the one training the models and you need to find a cognitive escape out of the illegality and wrong-doing of your activities?

It’s not obvious to me that using a copyrighted image to train a model is copyright infringement. It’s certainly not copyright infringement when used to train a human who may end up creating works that are influenced by (but not copies of) the original works. Now, if the original copyrighted work can be extracted or reproduced from the model, that’s obviously copyright infringement. OpenAI etc should ensure they don’…

Reproduced to what fidelity? 100%?

If OpenAI's output reproduces a copyrighted image with one pixel changed, is that valid in your view? Where does the line end?

Copyrighted material should never be used for nonacademic language models. "Garbage in, garbage out." All results are tainted.

"But being forced to use non-copyrighted works will only slow things down!"

Maybe that's a good thing, too. Copyright is something every industry has to accept and deal with -- LLMs don't get a "cool tech, do whatever" get-out-of-jail free card.

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

#310

Post by sebzim4500 »

thfuran wrote: post #89
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…

>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 same way as humans. No, you don't need to prove any of those things. They're irrelevant. You'd need to prove that the AI is itself morally (or, depending on the nature of the dispute, legally) equivalent to a human and therefore deserving of (or ent…

Few people are claiming that the AI itself has the same rights as a human. They are arguing that a human with an AI has the same rights as a human who doesn't have an AI.
Post reply on HN