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

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

#331

Post by eigenvalue » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:30 PM UTC

This seems like a pretty pointless "arms race" or "cat and mouse game". People who want to train generative image models and who don't care about what artists think about it at all can just do some basic post-processing on the images that is just enough to destroy the very carefully tuned changes this Nightshade algorithm makes. Something like resampling it to slightly lower resolution and then using another super-resolution model on it to upsample it again would probably be able to destroy these subtle tweaks without making a big difference to a human observer.

In the future, my guess is that courts will generally be on the side of artists because of societal pressures, and artists will be able to challenge any image they find and have it sent to yet another ML model that can quickly adjudicate whether the generated image is "too similar" to the artist's style (which would also need to be dissimilar enough from everyone else's style to give a reasonable legal claim in the first place).

Or maybe artists will just give up on trying to monetize the images themselves and focus only on creating physical artifacts, similar to how independent musicians make most of their money nowadays from touring and selling merchandise at shows (plus Patreon). Who knows? It's hard to predict the future when there are such huge fundamental changes that happen so quickly!

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

#332

Post by brookst » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:30 PM UTC

SamPatt wrote: post #325

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?

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.

Imagine if every book or advertisement or public conversation you overheard led to future claims that you had unethically learned from public information. It’s such a weird worldview.

(BTW I forbid you from using my comment here in your future reasoning)

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

#333

Post by josefx » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:31 PM UTC

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

Something similar to jpeg artifacts on any surface with a normally smooth color gradient, in some cases rather significant.

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

#334

Post by NoraCodes » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:31 PM UTC

matheusmoreira wrote: post #313

CaptainFever wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Copyright owners indeed. That's what these artists are. They're copyright owners. Monopolists. They are the capital. Capitalism is all about owning property. Copyright is intellectual property. Literally imaginary property. Ownership of information, of bits, of numbers . These artists are the literal epitome of capitalism. They enjoy state granted monopolies that last multiple human lifetimes. We'll be long dead befo…

> It's my sincere hope that this AI technology hammers in the last nails on the coffin of copyright and intellectual property as a whole.

If it does, I will give you one thousand United States dollars, and you can quote me on thst whenever you like.

More likely, big companies will retain control as they always have (via expensive lawyers), and individual artists will get screwed.

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

#335

Post by gumballindie » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:31 PM UTC

IcyWindows wrote: post #300

gumballindie wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't think we have to compare the process when the end result (another's work being influenced by what they have previously seen) is the same.

Exactly, and the higher the degree of influence the closer to theft. Ai cultists obsessed with stealing property somehow think that’s ok.

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

#336

Post by thfuran » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:31 PM UTC

schmichael wrote: post #123

KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

This is not one artist inspiring another. This is all artists providing their work for free to immensely capitalized corporations for the corporations sole profit. People keep making metaphors as if the AI is an entity in this transaction: it’s not! The AI is only the mechanism by which corporations launder IP.

>This is all artists providing their work for free to immensely capitalized corporations for the corporations sole profit.

No, the artists would be within their rights to do that if they chose to. This is corporations taking all the work of all artists regardless of the terms under which it was provided.

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

#337

Post by sircastor » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:31 PM UTC

juunpp wrote: post #302

theragra wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The United States Supreme Court rulings are supported literally by opinions of the justices.

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

#338

Post by falcolas » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:32 PM UTC

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.

> 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 in the process, they will obviate the need for Nightshade and similar tools.

AI models ingesting AI generated content does the work of destroying the models all by itself. Have a look at "Model Collapse" in relation to generative AI.

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

#339

Post by bongodongobob » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:32 PM UTC

tester457 wrote: post #288

bongodongobob wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah because their wage is inflated. Photographers were mad about digital cameras too. Womp womp.

Inflated is not an apt descriptor of artist wages, those are known to be low.

If you're independent selling paintings, sure. Designing packaging or something commercial? 4 hours of work a week for nearly 6 figures. I know a couple graphic designers and they don't do shit for what they're paid.

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

#340

Post by GaryNumanVevo » Sat, Jan 20, 2024, 10:33 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #304

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.

do you mean scrapped or scraped?

scraped