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

461–470 of 710 posts

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

#461

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #228
minimaxir wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You wouldn't be able to denoise as you'd have to denoise the entire dataset Doing that requires much less compute than training a large generative image model.

I guess the idea is that the model trainers are ignorant of this and wouldn't know to preprocess/wouldn't bother? That's actually quite plausible.

> I guess the idea is that the model trainers are ignorant of this

Maybe they're ignorant of it right up until you announce it, but then they're no longer ignorant of it.

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

#462

Post by [deleted] »

sircastor wrote: post #450
jazzyjackson wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the examples of midjourney reproducing exact frames of Dune, Star Wars etc? With vague prompting not asking for the media property specifically. It's pretty close to querying a database, except if you're asking for something that's not there it's able to render an interpolated result on the fly. Ask it for something that is there however and the model will dutifully pull it up.

Looking for it, I found this [1] which describes almost what you're saying. The key difference here is that these images aren't exact frames. They're close, of course, but close is not identical.Is there another instance you can point to that shows what you've described? [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright

[deleted]

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

#463

Post by jazzyjackson »

sircastor wrote: post #450
jazzyjackson wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the examples of midjourney reproducing exact frames of Dune, Star Wars etc? With vague prompting not asking for the media property specifically. It's pretty close to querying a database, except if you're asking for something that's not there it's able to render an interpolated result on the fly. Ask it for something that is there however and the model will dutifully pull it up.

Looking for it, I found this [1] which describes almost what you're saying. The key difference here is that these images aren't exact frames. They're close, of course, but close is not identical.Is there another instance you can point to that shows what you've described? [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright

that's a good reference and yes that's what i'm talking about, but i mixed up the fact that you can get simpsons and star wars without asking for it by name - the "find the difference between these two pictures" game is the result of asking for a specific movie. I stand by my point tho that this is not substantially different than querying a database for copywrited material

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

#464

Post by Ukv »

enord wrote: post #423
ronsor wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You act like computers and ML models aren't just tools used by people.

What did I write to give you that impression?

My initial interpretation was that you're saying fair use is irrelevant to the situation because machine learning models aren't themselves legal persons. But, fair use doesn't solely apply to manual creation - use of traditional algorithms (e.g: the snippets, caching, and thumbnailing done by search engines) is still covered by fair use. To my understanding, that's why ronsor pointed out that ML models are tools used by people (and those people can give a fair use defense).

Possibly you instead meant that fair use is relevant, but people are wording remarks in a way that suggests the model itself is giving a fair use defence to copyright infringement, rather than the persons training or using it?

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

#465

Post by mesh »

galleywest200 wrote: post #21
Kuinox wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they should license the content they use for the training data You mean like OpenAI and Adobe ? Only the free and open source models didn't licensed any content for the training data.

Adobe is training off of images stored in their cloud systems, per their Terms of Service. OpenAI has provided no such documentation or legal guarantees, and it is still quite possible they scraped all sorts of copyright materials.

No they are not. They train their models on Adobe Stock content. They do not train on user content.

https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin...

"The insights obtained through content analysis will not be used to re-create your content or lead to identifying any personal information."

"For Adobe Firefly, the first model is trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content, and public domain content where the copyright has expired."

(I work for Adobe)

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

#466

Post by tbalsam »

tbalsam wrote: post #449

[flagged]

(I understand that this is not a popular point, but I really want to emphasize that I am talking about what is _currently legal_ right now, not at all about the ethicality of large companies using people's data. The latter is a much harder topic.

This is mainly about what the law considers to be legal or not legal and is trying to avoid the more emotional side of the topic.)

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

#467

Post by BadHumans »

tbalsam wrote: post #457
BadHumans wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegally took my artwork and used it. How is it my fault you didn't understand what you were stealing?

Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal. Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that…

The "blatantly illegal" part is the part I'm not understanding. I drew something, I did some processing on it, I put it online, someone grabbed it and used it without my permission. I'm not clear on the illegal part.

> Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue

I think poking around HN or just this thread alone would tell you that at least people here don't support that.

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

#468

Post by thethimble »

tbalsam wrote: post #457
BadHumans wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sold on your argument. I'm not an artist but I don't see how an artist using Nightshade is breaking the law. From an anti-AI point of view, you illegally took my artwork and used it. How is it my fault you didn't understand what you were stealing?

Currently it's not legally defined what is stealing and what is fair use with respect to this, which is of course why k feel it is such a strong issue, however, poisoning data and intentionally masking it to hide said poisoning is rather blatantly illegal. Rather clearly I think most people support individual IP protection and that's not really a contested issue, however what is fair use and where things fall in that…

I wonder how your original claim balances with something like freedom of speech/expression? Ultimately it’s art and perhaps the Nightshade-modified version is a component of what makes the piece art?

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

#469

Post by Theodores »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

According to Marx, value is only created with human labour. This is not just a Marxist theory, it is an observation.

There may be lots of over-priced junk that makes you want to question this idea. But let's not nit-pick on that.

In two years time people will not see any value in AI art, quite correctly because there is not much human labour in creating it.

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

#470

Post by blibble »

HKH2 wrote: post #441
isodev wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tested it with Azure AI image classification and it worked - so this cat is yet to adapt to the mouse’s latest idea. I still feel it is absolutely wrong to roam around the internet and scrape images (without consent) in order to power one’s cash cow AI. I hope more methods to protect artworks (including audio and other formats) become more accessible.

Artists copy from each other all the time. Arguably, culture exists because of copying (folk stories by necessity); copyright makes culture top-down and stagnant, and you can't avoid it because they have the money to shove it right in your face. Who wants trickle-down culture?

it's not an artist, it's a piece of software

in the same way bittorrent or gzip is

Post reply on HN