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

321–330 of 710 posts

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

#321

Post by MrNeon »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #118
klyrs wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why are you seeking to provide an “antidote” I think it's worthwhile for such discussion to happen in the open. If the tool can be defeated through simple means, it's better for everybody to know that, right?

It would be better for artists to know that. But Hacker News is not a forum of visual artists: it's a forum of hackers, salaried programmers, and venture capitalists. Telling the bad guys about vulnerabilities isn't responsible disclosure. Causing car crashes isn't hard ( https://xkcd.com/1958/ ). That doesn't mean Car Crash™ International®'s decision-makers know how to do it: they probably don't even know what consi…

The tears of artists and copyright evangelists is so sweet.

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

#322

Post by MacsHeadroom »

kredd wrote: post #308
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.

Nope, but I already look down on artists who refuse to integrate generative AI into their processes.

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

#323

Post by Almondsetat »

xigoi wrote: post #314
Almondsetat wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you cannot train your drawing skills by copying other people's artworks?

You can do it in private, but you can’t distribute the resulting image, let alone sell it.

Then I don't really understand your original reply. Simply copying a publicly available image doesn't infringe anything (unless it was supposed to be private/secret). Doing stuff with that image in private still doesn't constitute infringement. Distribution does, but that wasn't the topic at hand

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

#324

Post by xigoi »

MrNeon wrote: post #320
xigoi wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how copyright works.

Tell me where it says training a model is infringing on copyright.

How is creating a derivative of someone’s work and selling it not copyright infringement?

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

#325

Post by SamPatt »

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?

Illegality and wrongdoing are completely distinct categories.

I'm not convinced that most copyright infringements are immoral regardless of their legal status.

If you post your images for the world to see, and someone uses that image, you are not harmed.

The idea that the world owes you something after you deliberately shared it with others seems bizarre.

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

#326

Post by xigoi »

Almondsetat wrote: post #323
xigoi wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do it in private, but you can’t distribute the resulting image, let alone sell it.

Then I don't really understand your original reply. Simply copying a publicly available image doesn't infringe anything (unless it was supposed to be private/secret). Doing stuff with that image in private still doesn't constitute infringement. Distribution does, but that wasn't the topic at hand

You can train a neural network in private too and nobody will have a problem with that. The topic of discussion is commercial AI.

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

#327

Post by withinboredom »

deadbeeves wrote: post #319
withinboredom wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to not use my things exists everywhere, universally. Good people usually ask before they use something of someone else's, and the person being asked can say "no." How hard is that to understand? You might believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they can say whatever they want. Example: If you studied my (we will assume "unique") work and used it without my permission, then let us say I sue you. A…

>You might believe they don't have the right to say "no," but they can say whatever they want. You have a right to say anything you want. Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it. >If you studied my (we will assume "unique") techniques and used them without my permission, then let us say I sue you. At that point, you would claim "fair use," On what grounds would you sue me? You think my defense w…

> Others aren't obligated do as you say just because you say it.

Yeah, that's exactly why you'd get sued for copyright theft.

> you must think my copying your style constitutes copyright infringement

Autocorrect screwed that wording up. I've fixed it.

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

#328

Post by thfuran »

ta8645 wrote: post #194
estebank wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that in a lot of places in the US you can point a video camera at the street and record. In Germany, you can't. The law in some locales makes a distinction between manual recording (writing or drawing your surroundings) and mechanized recording (photographing or filming). Scalability of an action is taken into consideration on whether something is ok to do or not.

That has no bearing at all on the issue at hand. The same can be said of the original argument that started this thread.

You think scalability isn't relevant to the difference between a person doing something by hand or with software operating on the entire internet?

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

#329

Post by xpe »

meowkit wrote: post #277
xpe wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the hard cold reality is that you cannot “own” an idea. The above comment is true about the properties of information, as explained via the lens of economics. [1] However, one ignores ownership as defined by various systems (including the rule of law and social conventions) at one's own peril. Such systems can also present a "hard cold reality" that can bankrupt or ostracize you. [1] Don't let the apparent conf…

There are other games in town. But whatever game gives the most predictive power is going to win.

There is no need to frame this as "winning versus losing" regarding the many models that we draw upon.

Even when talking about various kinds of scientific and engineering fields, predictive power isn't the only criteria, much less the best. Sometimes the simpler, less accurate models work well enough with less informational and computational cost.

Even if we focus on prediction (as opposed to say statistical inference), often people want some kind of hybrid. Perhaps a blend of satisficing with limited information, scoped action spaces, and bounded computation; i.e. good enough given the information we have to make the decisions we can actuate with some computational budget.

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

#330

Post by rlt »

Andrex wrote: post #309
rlt wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Reproduced to what fidelity? 100%?

Whatever the standard is for humans doing the exact same thing.

Post reply on HN