Live data from Hacker News

Nightshade: An offensive tool for artists against AI art generators

nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu

91–100 of 710 posts

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

#91
What the article doesn't illustrate is that it destroys fine detail in the image, even in the thumbnails of the reference paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.13828.pdf

Also... Maybe I am naive, but it seems rather trivial to work around with a quick prefilter? I don't know if tradition denoising would be enough, but worst case you could run img2img diffusion.

reply

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

#92

[flagged]

My issue with this line of argument is that it’s anthropomorphizing machines. It’s fine to compare how humans do a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they are very different from each other, organic vs hardware and software logic. First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the sa…

Why do you have to prove that? There is no replication (except in very rare cases), how someone draws a line should not be copyrightable.

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

#93
post #48

This seems to introduce levels of artifacts that many artists would find unacceptable: https://twitter.com/sini4ka111/status/1748378223291912567 The rumblings I'm hearing are that this a) barely works with last-gen training processes b) does not work at all with more modern training processes (GPT-4V, LLaVA, even BLIP2 labelling [1]) and c) would not be especially challenging to mitigate against even should it become…

Yeah. At worst a simple img2img diffusion step would mitigate this, but just eyeballing the examples, traditional denoisers would probably do the job?

Denoising is probably a good preprocessing step anyway.

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

#94
post #78

Won't a simple downsample->upsample be the antidote?

How do you train your upsampler? (Also: why are you seeking to provide an “antidote”?)

>why are you seeking to provide an “antidote”

To train a model on the data.

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

#95
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you train your upsampler? (Also: why are you seeking to provide an “antidote”?)

>why are you seeking to provide an “antidote” To train a model on the data.

Get permission to use the data.

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

#96
post #6

[flagged]

AI is just a tool in someone's hand, there's a human who intends something

If that's true, then it should be fine for that human to paint with the brush of his AI tool. Why should that human artist be restricted in the types of tools he uses to create his artwork?

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

#97

With this "solution" it looks like the world of art enters the cat-and-mouse game the ad blockers were playing for the last decade or two.

I might be missing something because I don't know much about the architecture of either Nightshade or AI art generators, but I wonder if you could try to have a GAN-like architecture (an extra model trying to trick the model) for the part of the generator that labels images to build resistance to Nightshade-like filters.

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

#99

[flagged]

My issue with this line of argument is that it’s anthropomorphizing machines. It’s fine to compare how humans do a task with how a machine does a task, but in the end they are very different from each other, organic vs hardware and software logic. First, you need to prove that generative AI works fundamentally the same way as humans at the task of learning. Next you have to prove that it recalls information in the sa…

We are machines. We just haven't evenly accepted it yet.

Our biology is mechanical, and lay people don't possess an intuition about this. Unless you've studied molecular biology and biochemistry, it's not something that you can easily grasp.

Our inventions are mechanical, too, and they're reaching increasing levels of sophistication. At some point we'll meet in the middle.

Post reply on HN