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

551–560 of 710 posts

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

#551

Post by jurassic »

Art9681 wrote: post #440
AJ007 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The level of claims accompanied by enthusiastic reception from a technically illiterate audience make it sound, smell, and sound like snake oil without much deep investigation. There is another alternative to the law. Provide your art for private viewing only, and ensure your in person audience does not bring recording devices with them. That may sound absurd, but it's a common practice during activities like having…

This would just create a new market for art paparazzis who would find any and all means to inflitrate such private viewings with futuristic miniature cameras and other sensors and selling it for a premium. Less than 24 hours later the files end up on hundreds or thousands of centralized and decentralized servers. I'm not defending it. Just acknowledging the reality. The next TMZ for private art gatherings is percolat…

I find this difficult to believe; no matter how small your camera is, photography is about light. Art reproduction photography is surprisingly hard to do if you care about the quality of the end result. Unless you can surreptitiously smuggle in a studio lighting setup, tripod, and color checker card… sure you can take an image in secret, but not one that is a good representation of the real thing.

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

#552

Post by nanofus »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #547

In so far as anger goes against AIs being trained on particular intellectual properties. A made up scenario¹ is that a person who is training an AI, goes to the local library and checks out 600 books on art. The person then lets the AI read all of them. After which they are returned to the library and another 600 books are borrowed Then we can imagine the AI somehow visiting a lot of museums and galleries. The AI wil…

I think the key difference here is that the most prominent image generation AIs are commercial and for-profit. The scenarios you describe are comparing a commercial AI to a private person. You cannot get a library card for a company, and you cannot bring a photography crew to a gallery without permission.

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

#553

Post by Thiez »

withinboredom wrote: post #271
stale2002 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotcha. I wasn't talking about someone creating and selling copies of someone else's work, fortunately. So my point stands and your completely is in agreement with me that people are allowed to learn from other people's works. If someone wants to learn from someone else's work, that is completely legal no matter the licensing terms. Instead, it is only distributing copies that is not allowed.

AI isn't a human. It isn't "learning"; instead, it's encoding data so that it may be reproduced in combination with other things it has encoded. If I paint a painting in the style of Monet, then I would give that person attribution by stating that. Monet may have never painted my artwork, but it's still based on that person's work. If I paint anything, I can usually point to everything that inspired me to do so. AI c…

Every waking second humans are training on what they see in their surroundings, including any copyrighted works in sight. Want to compare untrained AI fairly? Compare their artistic abilities with a newborn.

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

#554

Post by [deleted] »

wraptile wrote: post #523
chris-orgmenta wrote: post #243

I want progressive fees on copyright/IP/patent usage, and worldwide gov cooperation/legislation (and perhaps even worldwide ability to use works without obtaining initial permission, although let's not go into that outlandish stuff) I want a scaling license fee to apply (e.g. % pegged to revenue. This still has an indirect problem with different industries having different profit margins, but still seems the fairest)…

Extremely naive to think that any of this could be enforced to any adequate level. Copyright is fundamentally broken and putting some plasters on it is not going to do much especially when these plasters are several decades too late.

[deleted]

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

#555

Post by Biganon »

Reubend wrote: post #432
gfodor wrote: post #175

Huge market for snake oil here. There is no way that such tools will ever win, given the requirements the art remain viewable to human perception, so even if you made something that worked (which this sounds like it doesn’t) from first principles it will be worked around immediately. The only real way for artists or anyone really to try to hold back models from training on human outputs is through the law, ie, levera…

> Huge market for snake oil here. This tool is free, and as far as I can tell it runs locally. If you're not selling anything, and there's no profit motive, then I don't think you can reasonably call it "snake oil". At worst, it's a waste of time. But nobody's being deceived into purchasing it.

There's an academic paper being published.

Snake oil for the sake of getting published is a very real problem that does exist.

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

#556

Post by torginus »

redwall_hp wrote: post #345
kredd wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is already the case. Art is a process, a form of human expression, not an end result. I'm sure OpenAI's models can shit out an approximation of a new Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams novel, but nobody with any level of literary appreciation would give a damn unless fraud was committed to trick readers into buying it. It's not the author's work, and there's no human message behind it.

Thing is there are way more good books written, than any single person can consume in their lifetimes. An average person like me, reading a mixed diet of classics, obscure recommendations and what's popular right now, I still don't feel like I'm making a dent in the pile of high quality written content.

Given all that, the purpose of LLMs should be to create tailor made content to everyone's tastes. However, it seems the hardcore guardrails put into GPT4 and Claude prevent it from generating anything enjoyable. It seems, even the plot of the average Star Wars movie is too spicy for modern LLM sensibilities, never mind something like Stephen King.

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

#558

Post by torginus »

popohauer wrote: post #30
Quanttek wrote: post #10

This is fantastic. If companies want to create AI models, they should license the content they use for the training data. As long as there are not sufficient legal protections and the EU/Congress do not act, tools like these can serve as a stopgap and maybe help increase pressure on policymakers

It's going to be interesting to see how the lawsuits against OpenAI by content creators plays out. If the courts rule that AI generated content is a derivative work of all the content it was trained on it could really flip the entire gen AI movement on its head.

My biggest fear is that the big players will drop a few billion dollars to silence the copyright holders with power go away, and new rules are put in place that will make open-source models that can't do the same essentially illegal.

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

#559

Post by usrbinbash »

__loam wrote: post #213
usrbinbash wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that it’s anthropomorphizing machines. No, it's not. It's merely pointing out the similarity between the process of training artists (by ingesting publicly available works) and ML models (which ingest publicly available works). > First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Given that there is no comprehensive model for how humans actually learn thi…

What a reductive way to describe learning art. The similarities are merely surface level. > Given that there is no comprehensive model for how humans actually learn things, that would be an unfeasible requirement. That is precisely why we should not be making this comparison.

> The similarities are merely surface level.

Then please, feel free to explain the deep differences.

> That is precisely why we should not be making this comparison.

Wrong. It's precisely why the claim "there is a big difference" doesn't have a leg to stand on. If you claim "this is different", I ask "how?" and the answer simply repeats the claim, I can apply Hitchens Razor[1] and dismiss the claim.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

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

#560

Post by wraptile »

946789987649 wrote: post #538
wraptile wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is people want the benefits of having their stuff public but not bear the costs. Scraping has been mostly a solved problem especially when it comes to broad crawling. Put it under a login, there, no more AI "stealing" your work.

Is that login statement strictly true? Unless the login is paid, there's no reason we can't get to (if not already there) the point where the AI scraper can just create a login first.

No, eforcing click-wrap legal agreements is actually possible. With basic KYC the scraper would instantly open up itself for litigation and no internet art piece is frankly worth this sort of trouble.
Post reply on HN