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

361–370 of 710 posts

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

#361

Post by thfuran »

wokwokwok wrote: post #31
Filligree wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a terrible analogy. Until the scrapers start deleting all other copies of what what they're scraping, "stealing" the art in a traditional sense, there's no harm done in the process of training the network. Any harm done comes after that.

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

#362

Post by deadbeeves »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #346
deadbeeves wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion. The fact remains that a machine being able to copy the artistic style of a human makes it so that anyone can produce output in the style of that human by just feeding the machine electricity. That inherently devalues the style the artist has painstakingly developed. If someone wants a piece of art in that artist's style they don't have to go to that artist, they just ne…

> Whether it's irrelevant is a matter of opinion. It's just as much of an opinion, or as 'objective', as your prior statements. Your going to have to face up to the fact that just saying something is 'objective' doesn't necessarily mean all 8 billion people will agree that it is so.

Yes, someone can disagree on whether a fact is true. That's obviously true, but it has no effect on the truth of that fact.

I'm saying something very simple: If a machine can copy your style, that's a fundamentally different situation than if a human can copy your style, and it has utterly different consequences. You can disagree with my statement, or say that whether it's fundamentally different is subjective, or you can even say "nuh-uh". But it seems kind of pointless to me. Why are you here commenting if you're not going to engage intellectually with other people, and are simply going to resort to a childish game of contradiction?

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

#363

Post by xpe »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #290
xpe wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... you cannot “own” an idea. Let's talk about ownership in a broader sense. In practice, one cannot effectively own (retain possession of) something without some combination of physical capability or coercion (or threat of coercion). Meaning: maintaining ownership of anything (physical or otherwise) often depends on the rule of law.

Then let's use a more precise term that is also present in law: monopoly. You can't monopolize an idea. Copyright law is a prescription, not a description. Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly. The effectiveness of that demand depends on how well it can be enforced. Playing pretend during the age of the printing press may have been easy enough to coordinate, but it…

Trying to make sense of the above comment is difficult.

> Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly.

Saying "lie" suggests willful deception. Perhaps you mean "socially constructed"? Combined with "playing pretend" makes it read a bit like a rant.

> Then let's use a more precise term that is also present in law: monopoly.

Ok, in law and economics, the core idea of monopoly has to do with dominant market power that crowds out the existence of others. But your other uses of "monopoly" don't match that. For example, you talk about ideas and "intellectual monopoly". What do you mean?

It seems like some of your uses of "monopoly" are not about markets but instead are closer to the idea of retaining sole ownership.

> If we were to increase enforcement to the point of effectiveness, then what society would be left to participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of.

It appears you've already presupposed how things would play out, but I'm not convinced. What is your metric of effectiveness? A scale is better than some arbitrary threshold.

Have you compared copyright laws and enforcement of the U.S. versus others?

How far would you go: would you say that i.e. society would be better off without copyright law? By what standard?

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

#364

Post by ikmckenz »

tsujamin wrote: post #180
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)…

Being able to fairly monetise your creative work and put food on the table is a bit rivalrous though, don’t you think?

No, rivalrous has a specific meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

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

#365

Post by johnnyanmac »

sesm wrote: post #135
gedy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's more about "protecting" images that artists want to publicly share to advertise work, but it's not appropriate for final digital media, etc.

In short, anti-AI watermark.

Yeah. It may mess with the artist's vision but the impact is still way more subtle than other methods used to protect against these unwanted actions.

Of course I'm assuming it works to begin with. Sounds like a game of cat and mouse. And AI has a lot of rich cats.

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

#366

Post by password54321 »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

It is only natural to see a moral difference between people going to school and learn from your art because they are passionate about it, versus someone on the internet just scraping as many images as possible and automating the learning process.

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

#367

Post by fzeroracer »

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.

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

Let me define a few cases of 'uses that image' and see where your line in the sand drops

* If someone used that image as part of an advertising campaign for their product, they are profiting off your work. Are you not harmed?

* If someone used that image and pretended they created it. Are you not harmed?

* If someone used that image and sold it directly. Are you not harmed?

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

#368

Post by password54321 »

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.

Not really. There is a reason why we find realistic painting to be more fascinating than a photo and why some still practice it. The effort put in by another artist does affect our enjoyment.

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

#369

Post by johnnyanmac »

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.

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

You're right and wrong. You're right because most infringement is from people who can do minimal damage and in fact so more help by giving awareness to your works by sharing. But this is only becsuse copyright it working (most of the time) against corporate entities who don't want to leave any room for legalities to come in.

If copyright ended I'd bet my bottom dollar Disney and all the other billionaires companies would be spamming any and everything that gets moderately popular. And Disney can put advertise the original artist easily.

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

#370

Post by bsza »

tsujamin wrote: post #180
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)…

Being able to fairly monetise your creative work and put food on the table is a bit rivalrous though, don’t you think?

So is sabotaging solutions that would make creative work of the same (or superior) quality more affordable. Your ability to produce expensive illustrations hinders my ability to produce cheap textbooks.
Post reply on HN