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

691–700 of 710 posts

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

#691

Post by int_19h »

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?

If humans can process it, you can train a model to do the same.

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

#692

Post by int_19h »

torginus wrote: post #556
redwall_hp wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's where you spin up a local LLaMA instance. The largest models that are still runnable on consumer grade hardware actually beat GPT-3.5 at this point. And there are numerous finetunes all over the "spiciness" spectrum.

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

#693

Post by int_19h »

Theodores wrote: post #469
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.

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.

In Marx's time, you needed humans to perform any kind of labor. Even machines needed operators. But there's nothing about LTV that would make it a hard requirement. The point of Marx's claim is that without someone performing labor using capital, there wouldn't be any value for the owner of said capital to pocket. This is just as true if you replace workers with AI.

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

#694

Post by int_19h »

password54321 wrote: post #405
blacklion wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, there is no artists in, for example, street photography? Picture must be altered to become art, or staged? Was it irony? :)

They are photographers. Here is the definition of an artist so you can have better clarity on what an artist is: "A person who creates art (such as painting, sculpture, music, or writing) using conscious skill and creative imagination"

Your definition assumes that photography is not art and/or doesn't involve conscious skill and creative imagination. That's not the consensus, to put it mildly.

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

#695

Post by int_19h »

sussmannbaka wrote: post #536
ufocia wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will democratize art.

Art is already democratized. It has been for decades. Everyone can pick it up at zero cost. Even you! The poorest people have historically produced great art. Training a model, however? Expensive. Running it locally? Expensive. Paying the sub? Expensive. Nothing is being democratized, the only thing this does is devaluing the blood and sweat people have put into their work so FAANG can sell it to lazy suckers.

Time is not a zero cost thing, and especially not for the poorest people.

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

#696

Post by int_19h »

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.

If the courts do rule that way, I would expect a legislative race between different countries to amend the relevant laws. Visual generative AI is just too lucrative a thing.

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

#697

Post by int_19h »

23B1 wrote: post #253
Minor49er wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the existence of the AI tool not itself a product of authentic creativity? Does eliminating barriers to image generation not facilitate authentic creativity?

No, it facilitates commoditization. Art – real art – is fundamentally a human-to-human transaction. Once everyone can fire perfectly-rendered perfectly-unique pieces of 'art' at each other, it'll just become like the internet is today: filled with extremely low-value noise. Enjoy the short term novelty while you can.

So then you'll have curation to find the gems in that noise.

But it's still not clear why this is worse than the situation where not everyone can create perfectly-rendered pieces of whatever idea is in their head, and have to rely on others to do it for them, while being limited by what they can afford and what those others are willing to paint.

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

#698

Post by SamPatt »

juunpp wrote: post #590
SamPatt wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegality and wrongdoing are completely distinct categories. I'm not convinced that most copyright infringements are immoral regardless of their legal status. If you post your images for the world to see, and someone uses that image, you are not harmed. The idea that the world owes you something after you deliberately shared it with others seems bizarre.

My statement above is that their activities are illegal and wrong, not that one implies the other. They are illegal because of the copyright violation, and wrong because regardless of what the law says, using the images for training despite the artists' every appeal to the contrary (being vocal about the issue, putting a robots.txt file to avoid scraping, and now using adversarial techniques to protect their work fro…

Your analogy makes no sense.

Your yard is your property. If I shit on your property then I've trespassed and damaged your property.

Digital images are nonrivalrous.

If you make an infinite number of photocopies and hand them out for free to all passing strangers (aka sharing an image online) then if a stranger uses one of those photocopies, they haven't trespassed or damaged your property.

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

#699

Post by jurassic »

nihilius wrote: post #658
jurassic wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could just build a stabilizer system and stand really still for 1 second. Then expose for a longer time. Photography is Apertrue, ISO, and exposure time. This will gather enough light to do a proper exposure even in a dimm lit venue. Anything darker and every viewer will have a hard time seeing the private art. ANother thing would be to crank up the ISO and denoise it later. Its much more lossy but with this you…

I hear what you’re saying, but I think maybe we just have different standards for what counts as acceptable quality.

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

#700

Post by Shemetz »

gweinberg wrote: post #116

For this to work, wouldn't you have to have an enormous number of artists collaborating on "poisoning" their images the same way (cow to handbag) while somehow keeping it secret form ai trainers that they were doing this? It seems to me that even if the technology works perfectly as intended, you're effectively just mislabeling a tiny fraction of the training data.

1. They don't need an enormous number of artists; the research paper showed significant results with even 50 poisoned image samples in the dataset, which is enough to be contained in even a single artist's online gallery.

2. They don't need to keep it a secret; the goal is to remove these images from the training data, in a way that would be much more efficient than simply adding a "please don't include my art in your ai scraper" message next to your pictures.

Post reply on HN