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

661–670 of 710 posts

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

#661

Post by nihilius »

vmirnv wrote: post #621
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…

I'm thinking — is it possible to create something on a global level similar to what they did in Snapchat: some sort of image flickering that would be difficult to parse, but still acceptable for humans?

Sorry i do not use Snapchat and with googeling "Snapchat image flickering" i did not find a good result. Could you elaborate this a bit more or provide me with a link where this is described? Thank you very much. :)

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

#662

Post by fennecfoxy »

I find the AI training topic interesting, because it's really data/information that is involved. Forget about the fact that it's images or stories or Reddit posts, it's all data.

We are born and then exposed to the torrent of data from the world around us, mostly fed to us by other humans, this is what models are trying to tap.

Unfortunately our learning process is completely organic and takes decades and decades and decades; there's no way to put a model through this easily.

Perhaps we need to seed the web with AI agents who converse and learn as much like regular human beings as possible and assemble the dataset that way. Although having an agent browse and find an image to learn to draw from is still gonna make people reee even if that's exactly what a young and aspiring human artist would be doing.

Don't talk about humans being sacred; we already voted to let corporations be people, for the 1% to exist and "lobby", breaking our democracy so that they can get tax breaks and make corrupt under the table deals. None of us stopped that from happening...

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

#664

Post by golol »

NoahKAndrews wrote: post #639
golol wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is also deceptive and snake-oil even if it does not involve profit driven motivations.

It very often does involve such motivations, though I agree with your larger point.

I should've said even when it does not involve... English can be funny.

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

#665

Post by offices »

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…

For comparison, The Ocean Full of Bowling Balls did this and successfully remained hidden for half a century, only failing because it was published somewhere else.

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

#666

Post by fastball »

xpe wrote: post #499
fastball wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm either not understanding you or disagreeing. You seem to be saying that something should be because it is ? Saying that would be rather silly, as in "Electrons should repel each other because they repel each other." Not to mention that this claim runs amok of the naturalistic fallacy. So what are you driving at?

Well first I meant "not rivalrous", whoops typo.

But from there my point was that, in order to ask what "should be", you must ask what can be. I don't think there is a way for ideas to be non-rivalrous, period.

So sure, saying ideas are not rivalrous is descriptive, but there isn't really another option.

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

#667

Post by nottorp »

blacklion wrote: post #395
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who use generative AI in their processes are not artists.

And people who use Photoshop are? There is somewhat famous digital artist from Russia - Alexey Andreev. Google it, he has very distinctive style of realistic technique and surrealistic situations, like landing big manta ray on the deck of aircraft carrier. Or you can see his old works in his 5-years-not-updates LJ [1]. Now he uses generative AI as one of his tools. As Photoshop, as different (unrealistic!) brushes in…

For every Alexey Andreev there are about 248518 blogs with "AI" generated illustrations that you just scroll past without noticing :)

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

#668

Post by thomastjeffery »

xpe wrote: post #641
thomastjeffery wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very concept that a thing cannot be copied. That is the obvious falsehood that we are compelled to pretend is true. I don't see how any of that is muddled. I'm being as direct as I can with my words here. I'm talking about the very plain fact that art can be copied freely. For example, DRM software gives you encrypted content and the decryption key. Why bother? Because the end user is expected to pretend they are…

> The very concept that a thing cannot be copied. That is the obvious falsehood that we are compelled to pretend is true. No, copyright law does _not_ compel us to believe that things cannot be copied. Instead, it establishes consequence of illegal copying. I'm flabbergasted that you, so far, don't recognize a simple and foundational difference between "can" and "should".

If I used every word in precisely the context you expect, then what in the world would I have to say to you?

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

#670

Post by [deleted] »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #452
r3trohack3r wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a bummer of a thing to say. Those millions/billions of people matter a great deal.

They matter but not under the current system. Artists are a rarely paid profession, and there are professional artists out there but there’s now a huge amount of people that will never contact an artist for work that used to only be human powered. It’s not personal for me. I understand that desire to resist the inevitable but it’s here now. For what it’s worth I never use midjourney or dalle or any of the commercial…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN