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

71–80 of 710 posts

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

#71

Post by luma »

kg wrote: post #51
luma wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google scrapes copyrighted material every day and then presents that material to users in the form of excerpts, images, and entire book pages. This has been ruled OK by the courts. Scraping copyrighted information is not illegal or we couldn't have search engines.

Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on people's art without permission, and you can type their name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies selling the thing I described right now.

That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.

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

#72

Post by MichaelZuo »

deadbeeves wrote: post #61
MichaelZuo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are you saying?

Of course it's subjective, e.g. 3 million years ago there were no 'different implications' whatsoever, of any kind, because there were no humans around to have thoughts like that.

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

#73

Post by kg »

luma wrote: post #71
kg wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not presently selling "we trained an AI on people's art without permission, and you can type their name in along with a prompt to generate a knockoff of their art, and we charge you money for this". So it's not really a 1:1 comparison, since there are companies selling the thing I described right now.

That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.

Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.

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

#74

Post by deadbeeves »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #72
deadbeeves wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are you saying? Of course it's subjective, e.g. 3 million years ago there were no 'different implications' whatsoever, of any kind, because there were no humans around to have thoughts like that.

I'm using "implication" as a synonym of "effect". If a human learns to imitate your style, that human can make at most a handful of drawings in a single day. The only way for the rate of output to increase is for more humans to learn to imitate it. If an AI learns to imitate your style, the AI can be trivially copied to any number of computers and the maximum output rate is unbounded. Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but this difference in consequences is objective, and someone could be entirely justified in seeking to impede it.

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

#79

Post by xg15 »

I wonder how this tool works if it's actually model independent. My understanding so far was that in principle each possible model has some set of pathological inputs for which the classification will be different than what a user sees - but that this set is basically different for each model. So did they actually manage to build an "universal" poison? If yes, how?

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

#80

Post by luma »

kg wrote: post #73
luma wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That pretty clearly would fall under transformative work. It is not illegal for a human to paint a painting in the style of, say, Banksy, and then sell the resulting painting.

Humans and AI are not the same thing, legally or physically. The law does not currently grant AI rights of any kind.

If a human isn't violating the law when doing that thing, then how is the machine violating the law when it cannot even hold copyright itself?
Post reply on HN