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

61–70 of 710 posts

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

#61

Post by deadbeeves »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #59
deadbeeves wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Even if neural networks learn the same way humans do, this is not an argument against taking measures against one's art being used as training data, since there are different implications if a human learns to paint the same way as another human vs. if an AI learns to paint the same way as a human. If the two were exactly indistinguishable in their effects no one would care about AIs, not even researchers.

But the 'different implications' only exist in the heads of said artists? EDIT: removed a part.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say different implications existing is subjective, since they clearly aren't, but regardless of who has more say in general terms, the author of a work can decide how to publish it, and no one has more say than them on that subject.

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

#63

Post by NoraCodes »

educaysean wrote: post #40
NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

As a human artist I don't feel the same as you, and I somehow doubt that you care all that much about what we think anyways. You already made up your mind about the tech, so don't feel the need to protect us from "a tool of capital [sic]" to fortify your argument.

My opinion is based on my interactions with my friends who are artists. I admit freely to caring less about what people I don't know say, in the absence of additional evidence.

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

#64

Post by Levitz »

SonicSoul wrote: post #25
NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

great comment! imagine being a photographer that takes decades to perfect their craft. sure another student can study and mimic your style. but it's still different than some computer model "ingesting" vast amount of photos and vomiting something similar for $5.99 in aws cpu cost so that some prompt jockey can call themselves an AI artist and make money off of other peoples talent. i get that this is cynical and does…

Because that's not what happens, ever. You wouldn't ask a human to have their style of photographing when they don't know what a photograph even looks like.

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

#65

Post by NoraCodes »

witherk wrote: post #37
NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

"Cameras are a tool of captial to fuck over human portrait artists" It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.

That's an intentional misinterpretation, I think. I mention art as an economic activity because it's primarily professional artists that are harmed by the widespread adoption of this technology.

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

#66

Post by krapp »

devmor wrote: post #27

Baffling to see anyone argue against this technology when it is a non-issue to any model by simply acquiring only training data you have permission to use.

The reason people are arguing against this technology is that no one is using them in the way you describe. They actually wouldn't even be economically viable in that case.

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

#67

Post by indigo0086 »

witherk wrote: post #37
NoraCodes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

"Cameras are a tool of captial to fuck over human portrait artists" It's funny that these people use the langauge of communism, but apparently see artwork as purley an economic activity.

They tried to use the labor theory early on by claiming, "real art takes hard work and time as opposed to the miniscule cpu hours computers use to make 'AI art". The worst thing AI brings to the table is amplifying these types of sentiments to control industry in their favor where they would otherwise be unheard and relegated to Instagram likes

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

#68

Post by Levitz »

NoraCodes wrote: post #17
persnickety wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a representative of a lot of things but hardly any capital who uses diffusion models to get something I would otherwise not pay a human artist for anyway, I testify that, the models are not exclusively what you describe them to be. I do not support indiscriminate banning of anything and everything that can potentially be used to fuck someone over.

I did not say they were exclusively that; I said they were that. Once we as a society have implemented a good way for the artists whose work powers these machines to survive, you can feel good about using them. Until then, frankly, you're doing something immoral by paying to use them.

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

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

#70

Post by matheusmoreira »

NoraCodes wrote: post #8
KingOfCoders wrote: post #4

[flagged]

This is a tired argument; whether or not the diffusion models are "learning", they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists, and should be resisted for that reason alone.

> they are a tool of capital to fuck over human artists

So are the copyright and intellectual property laws that artists rely on. From my perspective, you are the capital and I am the one being fucked. So are you ready to abolish all that?

Post reply on HN