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

381–390 of 710 posts

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

#381

Post by jrflowers »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #371
jrflowers wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no principle of the universe or across human civilizations Can you list the principles across human civilizations?

That doesn't follow; you can say an item is not in a set without writing out every member of that set. What principle do you claim exists to contradict that claim?

> you can say an item is not in a set without writing out every member of that set

Of course you can. Anyone can say anything.

Is “keeping the list of principles a secret” a principle like the rules of Fight Club? It is not unreasonable to ask for a link or summary of this immutable set of ground truths.

> What principle do you claim exists to contradict that claim?

I could not answer this question without being able to double check. The only principle that comes to mind is the principle of ligma

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

#382

Post by freeAgent »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #374
freeAgent wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, you can still train AI with these images. Nothing is stopping you.

To quote the source: >Nightshade's goal is not to break models, but to increase the cost of training on unlicensed data, such that licensing images from their creators becomes a viable alternative. Which feels similar to DRM. To discourage extraction of assets.

It also degrades the quality of the image for human consumers. It’s just a matter of what someone is willing to publish to “the public.”

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

#383

Post by thereisnospork »

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’…

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

I think there's an important distinction to be made here - "can" be reproduced isn't infringement, only actual reproduction is (and degrees thereof not consisting of sufficiently transformative or fair use).

Trivially a typewriter can reproduce a copyrighted book. Less trivially Google books, with iirc stores the full text of copywrited works has been judged to be legal.

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

#384

Post by johnnyanmac »

freeAgent wrote: post #382
johnnyanmac wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quote the source: >Nightshade's goal is not to break models, but to increase the cost of training on unlicensed data, such that licensing images from their creators becomes a viable alternative. Which feels similar to DRM. To discourage extraction of assets.

It also degrades the quality of the image for human consumers. It’s just a matter of what someone is willing to publish to “the public.”

Sure. Just like how video game drm impacts performance and watermarks on images degrades the image. Drm walks a tight line that inevitably makes the result worse than a drum-free solution, but also should not make the item completely unconsumable.

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

#385

Post by fastball »

xpe wrote: post #226
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)…

Many terms of art from economics are probably not widely-known here. > In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or a rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers, or if consumption by one party reduces the ability of another party to consume it. - Wikipedia: Rivalry (economics) Also: we should recognize that stating something as rivalrous or not is descriptive (wha…

I think ideas being rivalrous is intrinsic, and therefore descriptive and normative.

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

#386

Post by [deleted] »

rlt wrote: post #330
Andrex wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#387

Post by johnnyanmac »

eigenvalue wrote: post #331

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-re…

>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).

As is, art already isn't a sustainable career for most people who can't get a job in industry. The most common monetization is either commissions or hiding extra content behind a pay wall.

To be honest I can see more proverbial "Furry artists" sprouting up in a cynical timeline. I imagine like every other big tech that the 18+ side of this will be clamped down hard by the various powers that be. Which means NSFW stuff will be shielded a bit by the advancement and you either need to find underground training models or go back to an artist. .

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

#388

Post by kmeisthax »

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)…

We're not trying to keep the AI from learning general ideas, we're trying to keep it from memorizing specific expressions[0]. There's a growing body of research to show that these models are doing a lot of memorizing, even if they're not regurgitating that data. For example, Google's little "ask GPT to repeat a word forever" trick, which will make GPT-4 spit out verbatim training data[1].

If there was a training process that let us pick a minimal sample of examples and turn it into a general purpose art generator or text generator, I think people would have been fine with that. But that's not what any of these models do. They were trained on shittons of creative expression, and there's statistical evidence that the models retain that expression, in a way that is fundamentally different from how humans remember, misremember, adapt, remix, and/or "play around with" other people's creativity.

[0] You called these "embodiments", but I believe you're trying to invoke the idea/expression divide, so I'll run with that.

[1] Or at least it did. OpenAI now filters out conversations that trip the bug.

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

#389

Post by wredue »

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)…

Kick ass.

I now declare that I own Fortnite.

Where’s my money, Epic?

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

#390

Post by Levitz »

hirsin wrote: post #170
Levitz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this logic we ought to start lynching artists, why they didn't care about all of those who lost their jobs making pigments, canvasses, pencils, brushes etc etc

Artists pay those people and make their jobs needed. Same as the person above claiming Duchamp didn't negotiate with the ceramics makers - yes, they absolutely did and do pay their suppliers. Artists aren't smash and grabbing their local Blick. AI pays no artist.

>Artists pay those people and make their jobs needed.

Enter factories, now you gather all the knowledge from those who made the product, automate it and leave them without jobs.

Post reply on HN